Tag: presidential election

Deceased people in voter database result of difficulties obtaining information: Department of National Registration

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

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”.

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

“We have removed the names of deceased people from our database whose information hasbeen shared. But we cannot remove a person from the database if we can’t officially confirm their deaths,” DNR Director Fareeda Yoosuf told Haveeru.

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.

Meanwhile, the EC emphasised today that it has not made any changes to the information obtained from the DNR database when compiling the voter register for the presidential election scheduled for Saturday, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s order.

The commission will forward all complaints regarding the voter registry to the DNR, local media reported.

Complaints submitted thus far have primarily focused on the delayed re-registration process, according to local media. Other recurring issues are due to individuals being registered to vote under incorrect addresses or in the wrong location altogether.

The commission accepted complaints submissions until 6pm today. Additionally, as of this afternoon, the EC had processed over 52,000 – of the estimated 65,000 – re-registration forms for individuals voting outside of their permanent residences.

The entire re-registration process, including the complaints procedure, was delayed after supporters of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) “threatened officials, incited discord, and obstructed EC officials’ ability to work” at the voter registration department.

The commission notified the government that the Maldives Police Service (MPS) failed to remove the protesters from the registration section’s premises for five hours “despite repeated efforts and requests for police assistance”.

A midnight ruling from the Supreme Court on October 10 ordered the commission 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.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

HRCM calls on authorities to ensure inmates are able to vote

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) has issued a statement calling on authorities to ensure that inmates detained at state penitentiaries and police custody are able to vote during the presidential election.

The HRCM stated that the police, human rights and Gender Ministry as well as the Department of Penitentiary and Rehabilitation (DPRS) should complete the things they have to, in order to make sure all persons detained in their facilities are able to vote.

The commission said it had sent a letter to the Supreme Court to discuss the verdict regarding the issue.

On September 5, a source within the Maafushi Prison told Minivan News that more than 200 inmates were not registered to vote because they do not have national identity cards. The source claimed that inmates have to pay the prison department to renew their ID cards but that there are inmates in the cells who have no way to get money.

He said that inmates have contacted politicians and been told it is  the responsibility of the Home Ministry to make ID cards for all the inmates who do not have them.

The source also claimed that inmates have complained about both the Prison Department and the Home Ministry stealing the money the government had given them to get ID cards for inmates.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Translation: Supreme Court verdict on Jumhooree Party vs Elections Commission

Following is an unofficial translation of the judgment (Dhivehi) delivered by the Supreme Court on October 7, 2013 annulling the first round of the presidential polls in the case filed by the Jumhooree Party against the Elections Commission alleging electoral fraud. The 4-3 majority decision of Justice Ahmed Abdulla Didi, Abdulla Saeed, Adam Mohamed Abdulla and Ali Hameed Mohamed annulled the election result.

Read story on election annullment

Read summary of Dissenting Opinions

Read Minivan News’ courtroom observations

Majority verdict:

Thus, upon consideration in a legal and judicial view of the arguments made by the complainant as well as the Attorney General of the Maldives and the Progressive Party of Maldives who had intervened in the case filed at the Supreme Court of the Maldives by the Jumhooree Party; the guidelines given to the Elections Commission in the Supreme Court case 39/SC-C/2013 regarding improvements in the arrangements for the presidential election held in the Maldives on September 7, 2013 as well as the principle of legality; the constitution of the Republic of the Maldives; the law number 11/2008 (Elections Act); the evidence submitted in the case as well as the expert report compiled by an expert forensic team assigned by the Supreme Court to compile a report needed for the trial concerning the evidence; and the standards in article 170 of the constitution to be followed for public referendums and various elections:-

And since the case submitted by the Jumhooree Party requested annulment of the presidential election held on September 7, 2013 contending that a large number of citizens were deprived of the fundamental right of every citizen of the Maldives older than 18 years to vote in elections and to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, due to the actions of the Elections Commission, which is given the responsibility by the constitution of making the arrangements fairly, without bias or partiality, to elect a president; [and contending] that the Elections Commission made arrangements for the election without accepting the cooperation and consultation offered by the National Centre for Information Technology and the Maldives Police Service based on information they had concerning the reforms the Elections Commission needed to enact to ensure that all elections and public referendums are conducted freely and fairly, without intimidation, undue influence or corruption as stipulated in article 170(a) of the constitution; and [contending] that there was sufficient evidence to prove with certainty that the Elections Commission acted dictatorially in violation of the guidelines given in the Supreme Court case 39/SC-C/2013 with the intention of benefiting a particular party:-

As it is clearly stated in article 26(a) and (c) in chapter two of the constitution that every citizen of the Maldives 18 years of age or older has the right to vote in elections, and in public referendums, and to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; as article 69 of the constitution states that no provision of the constitution shall be interpreted or translated in a manner that would grant to the state or any group or person the right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms set out in this constitution; as article 65 of the constitution, referring to chapter two of the constitution that outlines the fundamental rights and freedoms of Maldivian citizens, states that, “Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this chapter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court to obtain a just remedy,” and where the rights of a person, a group or community has been adversely affected by administrative action, every such person, group or every person who may be directly affected by such action has the right to submit the matter to court.

And article 113 of the constitution states in clear language that the Supreme Court shall have sole and final jurisdiction to determine all disputes concerning the qualification or disqualification, election, status, of a presidential candidate or running mate or removal of the President by the People’s Majlis, and that such a decision by the Supreme Court shall be the final word; as article 145(c) states that the Supreme Court shall be the final authority on the interpretation of the constitution, the law, or any other matter dealt with by a court of law; and as article 20(b) of law number 22/2010 (Judicature Act) states in clear and unambiguous language that it is obligatory upon the executive, the People’s Majlis, the judiciary, members of independent institutions, state institutions, persons in state posts, the security services comprising of the police and military, and all citizens to obey decisions of the Supreme Court,

The [Jumhooree Party] case is in regard to a dispute referred to in article 113 of the constitution concerning the election of a presidential candidate, and as article 113 definitively states that only the Supreme Court has the authority to settle such disputes, there is no legal or judicial basis to disagree within the region where the constitution of the Maldives holds sway that making a judgment in the case submitted by the Jumhooree Party and resolving the dispute concerning the election of a president is a constitutional responsibility within the special jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as the guardian of the constitution:-

As the Elections Commission that made the arrangements for voting in the first round of the presidential election mandated by the constitution of the Republic of the Maldives in the year 2013 is an impartial independent institution formed under article 167 of the constitution; as it is the responsibility of the Elections Commission to ensure the proper exercise of the right to vote, and to ensure that all elections and public referendums are conducted freely and fairly, without intimidation, aggression, undue influence or corruption; and as it can be clearly seen from article 17(2) (6) and (7) of law number 8/2008 (Elections Commission Act) that it is the responsibility of the members of the commission to promote rule of law, protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, to not commit any act either directly or indirectly to support or oppose a candidate or a political party, to not commit or participate in any act or express any opinion that might cast doubt on the independence of a member, and not commit any act that might cast doubt on the independence, freedom and impartiality of the commission – the arrangements for the presidential election held on September 7, 2013 were made in violation of the compulsory guidelines given to the Elections Commission in the Supreme Court case 29/SC-C/2013 as the guardian of the laws and the constitution of the Republic of Maldives; and as a result of the actions of the Elections Commission regarding the election, which broadly facilitated fraud, undue influence and corruption, 773 persons were allowed to vote despite conflicting ID card numbers, 7 persons whose names were not were not on the list were added to it manually with a pen, 18 persons voted despite the DNR [Department of National Registry] registry showing they were deceased, 7 children voted according to the registry, 3 persons voted twice, 225 people voted despite not being given ID cards under their names because their records were considered “repeated” in the DNR, 2830 people were allowed to vote despite their permanent addresses not matching, 952 people voted despite their names not matching, 7 people voted despite their names not being in the DNR at all, and records showed that the ID card numbers of 819 people did not match in the printed voter registry because of the carelessness of elections officials who noted it down after they had voted; as it can be seen that a large number of Maldivian citizens were deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote and as there was opportunity for one person to vote more than once; and as there is no legal or judicial basis to consider that the proper exercise of the right to vote as required by article 170(a) of the constitution was fully ensured in the aforementioned election, based on the witness testimony heard in this case, the clerical evidence, and the expert report compiled by the expert forensic team assigned by the Supreme Court regarding the evidence, [the Supreme Court rules] that presidential election held on September 7, 2013 is a void election that lacked legitimacy, and orders the Election Commission and other relevant state institutions to make arrangements for the first round of the presidential election required to be held in 2013 by the constitution under the following [guidelines];

(1)        The Elections Commission and relevant state institutions should jointly make arrangements to hold the election required by the constitution to be held in 2013 in adherence to the guidelines provided in this judgment before October 20.

(2)        If a second round is required in accordance with the law and the constitution, the Elections Commission and relevant state institutions should jointly make arrangements to ensure a second round of the presidential election before November 3, 2013.

(3)        Make arrangements for voting to ensure that all citizens who turn 18 years of age by the date of the election required by the constitution to be held in 2013 is able to freely and fully exercise the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right to vote in accordance with the rules or guidelines stated in this judgment.

(4)        Accept the Department of National Registration’s database as the main source to determine eligible voters in terms of age, and ensure that children under the age of 18 and the deceased are not included in listing eligible voters.

(5)        Ensure that voting in all electoral districts in the Maldives and abroad is based on the latest list that includes the voter’s name, permanent address and ID card number and [that the list] has been agreed upon as valid by the Elections Commission, candidates or their representatives, and [ensure that] no other list will be used in any electoral district either in the Maldives or abroad.

(6)        Ensure that all persons who register following the announcement for voter registration will not have their names changed to a different district when they are divided into the voting districts, and [ensure that] the list does not include the names of any persons other than those registered to vote in that district.

(7)        As those registered in the Male’ municipality special register are legally considered residents of Male’, and since there is no real reason to register [them] in a house in a particular ward or constituency of Male’ to vote in the presidential election, [the Elections Commission should] make arrangements for all persons in the Male’ municipality special registry who have been changed to houses to vote in specially designated ballot boxes [for those in the special registry].

(8)        Ensure that no one will be allowed to vote twice, and that every voter will be issued one ballot paper, and appoint all officials with the knowledge of candidates or their representatives to ensure that all officials in voting districts are safe from allegations of supporting or representing a particular political ideology or candidate.

(9)        Ensure that reports on the voting process in every district are compiled after completion of voting in the presence of representatives of candidates to ensure that the report is compiled without fraud or falsehood, omit or mark the names of people who did not vote in that district, ensure that the number of people who voted is not higher than the list of voters, and ensure that the report is compiled in the presence of representatives of candidates to assure that the people who voted in the list are those registered to vote in that district.

(10)   The Elections Commission and relevant authorities should make it illegal for any person (including officials) who enters the polling station to carry phones, handbags, files or any item (excluding pens) that could be considered to infringe upon the rights of candidates and ensure that no such action took place.

(11)   Ensure that a verified second list identical to the voters list in every district is placed in the district available for public viewing.

(12)   The Elections Commission together with the security services should ensure secure arrangements for printing new ballot papers with adequate security features appropriate for the election to be held before October 20, 2013 under the constitution, transferring ballot papers from one place or island to another, maintaining security for ballot papers, and maintaining security for ballot boxes after voting.

(13)   The latest token number issued to voters must be announced every 30 minutes to voters [waiting in queue], the relevant official should note the token number near the person’s name on the list while marking the name of the person after he or she has voted, and impartial officials must be appointed to ensure that no person’s name is marked twice and that two token numbers are not listed near the same name.

(14)   In order to ensure that arrangements for the presidential election required under the constitution are made in accordance with the compulsory guidelines given to the Elections Commission in this judgment, [the Elections Commission should] consult with other state institutions within no more than 72 hours of this judgment to ensure that [the necessary] arrangements will be made.

(15)   To minimise the possibility of a person being registered to a different district illegally without his or her knowledge, the Elections Commission should not accept re-registration forms or the forms submitted by a third party that does not include the name, address, identity card number and fingerprint of the person requesting re-registration, the person submitting the form as well as [the same information of] two witnesses. To ensure that [incomplete forms are not accepted], the Elections Commission should publicise a list including the names of those re-registered, the new district they have been registered to, their names, addresses, and ID card numbers.

(16)   As the aforementioned expert report revealed that a high number of foreigners who should not have had access to the Elections Commission server and database had regular access to it, the Elections Commission’s server and full IT system should be reformed and improved in accordance with the professional opinion of the National Centre for Information Technology and other relevant state institutions to assure confidence [in the server and IT system].

Dissenting Opinion

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussein and Abdulla Areef

The Jumhooree Party requested the annulment of the first round of the presidential election held on 7 September 2013, claiming the Elections Commission violated the Constitution, Elections laws and the Supreme Court verdict number 2013/SC-C/39, violated fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution to every citizen and requested the Supreme Court to declare it a right for every presidential candidate to receive the registry of individuals of who had voted from the Elections Commission, and requested the voter registry be invalidated, claiming the registry was not accurate as it was not compiled in accordance with relevant laws and guidelines noted in the Supreme Court’s verdict 2013/SC-C/39.

We note the following with reference to the testimony and evidence presented by the complainant, defendant and those who intervened in the case, the Maldives’ constitution and Act no 12/2008 (Presidential Elections Act), and Act no. 11/2008 (General Elections Act).

1. The complainant, Jumhooree Party, has noted the following in contending the existence of irregularities in the “Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013”:

  • 669 dead people noted on the Department of National Registration’s list are included in the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013
  • 41 individuals who were not 18 years of age by 07 September 2013 had changed their date of birth and are registered as 18 years old in the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013
  • 102 individuals are repeated twice (due to possessing double ID cards) in the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013
  • 1818 individuals who did not have valid ID cards and therefore were not included on the Department of National Registration’s list were included in the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013
  • 1187 individuals who are on the Malé Municipality Special Roster were registered in houses without the owner’s permission and are registered on the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013. The Election Commission does not have the authority to do so.
  • In compiling the Voter Registry of Presidential Election 2013, attention was not paid to find out and list the Maldivians who live abroad (this does not include Maldivians who registered to vote abroad)
  • Among people who have the right to vote but were not listed on the voter registry, some were allowed to vote, while others were not.
  • Upon arriving at the polling station, some individuals found votes had already been cast in their names, however, these individuals were allowed to vote again
  • The ballot papers used in the presidential election on 07 September 2013 lacked strong security features and hence allowed for inauthentic ballot paper copies. This will affect the election outcome
  • With reference to the points noted above, the Jumhooree Party believes 2630 people who do not have the right to vote were allowed to vote in the presidential election held on 07 September 2013

2. Although the Jumhooree Party filed this suit under Article 113 of the Constitution, with reference to the points noted below, it is clear this complaint relates to the voter registry as per Article 170 (b) of the Constitution. The Jumhooree Party has asked:

  • For the list of individuals who have voted in the presidential election of 07 September 2013 be made available to all candidates
  • To invalidate the Voter Registry contending the registry was not compiled in accordance with the constitution, relevant laws and Supreme Court verdict 2-13/SC-C/39
  • For the Presidential Election of 2013 be invalidated
  • To issue an injunction ordering the Elections Commission not to proceed with elections unless it corrects the wrongs raised by Jumhooree Party and abides by guidelines put forth in the Supreme Court verdict 2013/SC-C/39

3. The following points are noted with reference to relevant constitutional articles, Act no 12/2008 (Presidential Elections Act) and Act no. 11/2008 (General Elections Act):

  • Article 171 (a) and (b) of the Constitution states that voting in all public elections or public referendums conducted by the Elections Commission, shall be by secret ballot and that immediately after the close of the polls, the presiding officer who is appointed by the Elections Commission shall, in the presence of such candidates or their representatives if present, count at the polling station the ballot papers of that station, and record and publicly declare the votes cast in favor of each candidate or question in public referendum
  • Article 172 (a) and (b) states that a person may challenge a decision of the Elections Commission concerning an election or public referendum, or may challenge the results of an election, or contest the legality of any other matter related to an election, by means of an election petition presented to the High Court and the manner for dealing with any challenge submitted pursuant to article  (a) shall be provided for in a statute on elections

4. Article 62 – 65 of the General Elections Act states the manner with which any challenge submitted pursuant to Article 172 (a) shall be dealt with.

  • Article 64 states any individual may file a complaint at the High Court if election laws are violated, or if they are unhappy with the Election Commission’s decision in an election complain.
  • Article 63 states that any individual who has the right to vote, candidates standing for election, political parties, authorized observers and monitors have the right to file election related complaint.
  • Article 64 (a) (b) (c) states that if a petition is submitted to the High Court, it must be accompanied by reasons, details and evidence and submitted within 14 days of the announcement of official result.
  • Article 65 (a) states a court should annul the election in a specific geographical area and order a revote only in the area if the court finds undue influence, bribery to influence voting, or violation of the General Elections Act and subsidiary laws

5. The following is noted with reference to Act no 11/2008 that was passed pursuant to Article 170 of the Constitution. The Act states that the Elections Commission responsibilities and powers include conducting, managing, supervising, and facilitating all elections and public referendums, ensuring the proper exercise of the right to vote, and to ensure that all elections and public referendums are conducted freely and fairly without intimidation, aggression, undue influence or corruption and holding and declaring the results of those elections and public referendums within periods prescribed by law

  • Article 4 of the General Elections Act states the Election Commission must conduct, manage and supervise all election
  • Article 2 of the General Elections Act states that the Elections Commission must prepare and maintain a voter registry
  • Article 9 (a) (b) (c) of the Act states that the Elections Commission must update the voter registry with most recent information and publish the voter registry in the government gazette with voter names, sex, and permanent address, 45 days before an election, and on that same day the registry must be published in a public space in every inhabited island, and ensure access to any individual who wants to see it and must publicize the place where the registry is published
  • Article 10 (a) (b) (c) and (b) states that political parties and any individual who is above 18 years of age, regardless of whether they are included the voter registry, have the right to complain over information included or not included in the registry and if such a complaint exists they must submit a complaint in writing to the Elections Commission within ten days of the voter registry being published in the government gazette, and the Elections Commission must review the complaint within 5 days of the end of the 10 days, and inform the party who raised the complaint of the decision and the reasons for the decision, and must revise the voter registry accordingly and publish the new voter registry in the gazette and also make the revisions in the voter registry lists published in public.

6. Jumhooree Party submitted five lists as evidence to prove that the Elections Commission’s Voter registry was not compiled in accordance with the constitution, relevant laws and Supreme Court verdict 2013/SC-C/39. However, the sources from which the information obtained for these five lists are not known. These lists are 1. A list of dead people present on the Voter registry (669 individuals) 2. A list of individuals who were not 18 years of age in the Voter registry (41 people) 3. Individuals whose names were repeated twice on the Voter Registry (204 names) 4. A list of individuals who were not issued ID cards by the Department of National Registration (1818 names) 5. A list of individuals who had registered at addresses without the knowledge of the owner of the address (1187 names). The Elections Commission submitted lists of those who had voted in the first round of the presidential election held on 07 September 2013 for all 470 ballot boxes (796 booklets) on orders of the Supreme Court. Jumhooree party’s five lists and the Election Commission’s list of those who had voted were given to a Maldives Police Services expert team consisting of document examiners of the forensic services directorate, computer forensic analysts and technical staff for comparison. We note the following from the expert report compiled by the Maldives Police Services:

  • When the list of the 41 underage voters noted by the Jumhooree Party was matched with the DNR database, 32 of the 41 were found to be underage, but information for the remaining 9 could not be confirmed. The registry of individuals who had voted shows 12 of the 32 had voted in the presidential election of 2013 held on 7 September 2013.
  • When the Jumhooree Party’s list of 669 dead people included in the voter registry was compared with the Voter Registry, 637 of the 669 were found on the Voter registry. Of these 637, 14 individuals were found to have voted in the presidential election of 2013 held on 7 September 2013. Of these 14, two individuals voted with identity cards other than those issued to them
  • When the Jumhooree Party’s list of 204 repeated names was compared to the Voter Registry, 174 entries were found on the Voter Registry. Of these 174, 22 individuals’ information due to repeated permanent addresses had been noted as repeated entries in the Department of National Registry. However, none of these people were found to have cast repeated votes
  • When the Jumhooree Party’s list of 1818 individuals who had not been issued ID cards by the Department of National Registration was compared with the Department of National Registration’s database, it was found that 1637 of the 1818 were not issued ID cards by the Department of National Registration (the remaining 181 people’s information was not found). Of the 1637, 207 individuals were found to have voted in the presidential election and 96 of the 207 voted with ID cards numbers that were different to that included in the list published in the gazette
  • When the Jumhooree Party’s list of 1187 individuals on the Voter Registry who had registered at addresses without the owner’s consent was compared with the DNR database, 1186 individual’s records were found, of these 44 are believed to have voted in locations other than their place of domicile, and 1115 of 1186 are found to have voted, however, 1159 of those who voted did not vote in any other ballot box than the one they registered to vote in
  • In instances where there were discrepancies in information of voters between the voter registry and the DNR database, the information was corrected with a pen as per the DNR information, and these individuals were allowed to vote. However, this did not allow for repeated voting in the Presidential Election 2013 held on 07 September 2013
  • 7 individuals were added by pen to the Voter registry on 7 September 2013 and were allowed to vote. However, as per the list of those who had voted on 7 September 2013, these seven votes were not repeated. With reference to the points noted above, there are 473 votes that may affect the first round of the presidential election 2013. In addition to these irregularities, there are other discrepancies noted in Maldives Police Services’ forensic report. The Elections Commission must revise these discrepancies in order to maintain public trust and ensure elections are held as per the Constitution and election laws

7. The plaintiff and those who provided witness statements asked for anonymity. There were clarifications to be made in the 14 anonymised witness statements. However, since such clarifications may have violated the anonymity of the witnesses, such questions were not asked. Further, the secret Maldives Police Services document submitted by the Attorney General’s Office submitted to court did not provide a right of response to the defendant. Hence these witness statements and the secret documents have not been counted [in this opinion].

Given, Article 172 (a) of the constitution states that a person may challenge a decision of the Elections Commission concerning an election or a public referendum, or may challenge the results of an election, or contest the legality of any other matter related to an election, by means of an election petition presented to the High Court,

Given the Majlis has passed a statutory elections law (Act 11/2008) as per Article 172 (b) of the constitution which states the manner for dealing with any challenge shall be provided for in a statute on elections, and as Article 65 (a) of Act 11/2008 with reference to Article 64 of the same act states a vote in a specific area may be annulled and a revote ordered in that area if the court decides there is undue influence in an election in that specific area,

Given official results of an election can only be annulled only in the specific area, specific ballot box or boxes, in which undue influence has occurred as per Article 65 of Act 11/2008 (Elections Act), there is no room to annul the votes of the 211,890 people who voted in the 2013 Presidential Election held on 7 September 2013.”

Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan’s Dissenting Opinion

The Jumhooree Party requested the Supreme Court – under Article 113 of the Constitution, Article 10 (b) and 11 (a1-3) of Act no 22/2010 (Judicature Act) –  annul the first round of the presidential election held on 7 September 2013, claiming the Elections Commission violated the Constitution, Elections laws and the Supreme Court verdict number 2013/SC-C/39, violated fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution to every citizen and requested the Supreme Court to declare it a right for every presidential candidate to receive the registry of individuals of who had voted from the Elections Commission, and requested the voter registry be invalidated, claiming the registry was not accurate as it was not compiled in accordance with relevant laws and the Supreme Court’s verdict 2013/SC-C/39.

The defendant in this lawsuit is the Elections Commission. The Maldivian State, and the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) intervened in the case. However, the MDP later left the case.

I note the following with reference to the Constitution, Act no 08/2008 (Election Commission Act), Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act), Act no 12/2008 (Presidential Elections Act), testimony provided by the Jumhooree Party, testimony provided by the Elections Commission, testimony provided by third party interveners, documents submitted to court, the answers provided to judges, and procedural aspects of this case.

  1. The Jumhooree Party has three requests
    • Declare the handover of the list of individuals who voted in the Presidential Election of 2013 be a right afforded to every presidential candidate
    • Declare the voter registry unlawful as it was compiled in violation of the Constitution, relevant laws and Supreme Court verdict no 2013/SC-C/39 and invalidate the registry
    • Declare null the presidential election held on 7 September 2013, and order the Elections Commission to proceed with elections only in accordance with the Constitution, Elections laws, Supreme Court Verdict no 2013/SC-C/39, and after correcting the wrongs noted by the Jumhooree Party
  2. As Article 172 (a) of the Constitution states that a person may challenge a decision of the Elections Commission concerning an election or public referendum, or may challenge the results of an election, or contest the legality of any other matter related to an election, by means of an election petition presented to the High Court, and with reference to Article 10, 64 and 65 of Act no. 11/2008 (General Elections Act), it is known that the Jumhooree Party’s petition’s jurisdiction lies with the High Court, and the aforementioned laws detail the manner in which such a challenge may be dealt with in a court of law, and that the Jumhooree Party submitted such a petition to the High Court and the High Court issued a final verdict in the case
  3. When examining the Jumhooree Party’s claim that the Voter Registry was not compiled in accordance with the Constitution, the relevant election laws and Supreme Court verdict 2013/SC-C/39, I note that the Elections Commission prepared a registry of all individuals who have the right to vote as per Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act) and published the registry in the government gazette on 30 May 2013, and as per Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act) the registry was revised and published for a second time in the government gazette on 21 July 2013. Article 8 through 12 of Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act) clearly states that the Elections Commission must prepare and publicize the Voter Registry, allow revisions to the registry, allow individuals to re-register in instances where they are not present in their place of domicile at the time of voting. With reference to testimony and documents provided to this court, it is evident the Elections Commission followed all the procedures outlined in Article 8 through 12 of Act no 11/2008 (General Elections Act)
  4. The Supreme Court case no 2013/SC-C/39 was submitted to the court on 22 August 2013, and a verdict was issued on 02 September 2013, and the verdict was supported by a majority of the Supreme Court, and the verdict was issued five days before the presidential election to be held on 7 September 2013. Hence, when the Supreme Court verdict no 2013/SC-C/39 was issued, very little time remained for the presidential election on 7 September 201
  5. Point five of the Supreme Court Verdict no 2013/SC-C/39 states: “while it is certain that none can deprive a person of age, his right to cast his vote pursuant to Article 26(a) of the Constitution, upon scrutiny of submissions of the parties at the proceedings and the evidence tendered with reference to the allegation of the applicant that the Elections Commission had failed to verify the accuracy of the voter registry forms required for the Voter Registry to be compiled for the upcoming elections of September 7,2013, with specific reference given to the circumstantial evidence tendered i.e. selected forms from among the complaint forms material to this application themselves, the Justices find no avenue may be allowed for compromise of any constitutional right guaranteed to the people. Article 170(b) requires the Commission to compile, maintain, edit when necessary the Voter Registry for all public elections and referendums and this duty of maintaining this Registry with the registration of voters who wish to vote at places other than their place of domicile is a positive one which falls upon the Commission. This is essential to ensure that the competitive Presidential Elections impending do not end in circumstances of violence and hatred. Functions such as the duty to ensure that those temporarily impeded from exercising their voting rights owing to Registry irregularities at places of their domicile are catalogued and allowed to rectify the respective irregularity after normal polling hours and the duty to ensure that no one but eligible voters enter the voting premises are all duties which the Commission need necessarily undertake. These duties further include ensuring all eligible voters have the unimpeded opportunity to cast their vote at their respective places of domicile and that to ensure that all registered under the Malé Municipality Registry as legal residents of the capital city, to be able to vote in determined locations in the capital unless registered to vote elsewhere. The Commission shall also ensure positively pursuant to Article 170 that the election that is held throughout the country will be administered based on the final list issued by the Elections Commission and that the copy of this Registry is issued to the benefit of the Candidate’s representatives and lastly, that there is no reference of any kind or nature towards any other document for such purpose. The Commission shall ensure all such procedures towards guaranteeing the integrity of the impending elections, all as positive constitutional duties entrusted upon them under Article 170 of the Constitution.” It is evident the Elections Commission carried out orders noted in the Supreme Court’s verdict no 2013/SC-C/39
  6. I do not accept some of the evidence presented to court. A secret document the defendant was not given the right to respond to was submitted. (I am unable to provide more details on this note because of the secret nature of the evidence presented.
  7. The plaintiff was not able to present credible evidence to annul the first round of the presidential election held on 7 September 2013. With reference to the Constitution, election laws and Supreme Court verdict no 2013/SC-C/39, I do not believe the irregularities noted in the report comparing the access log of the computer software, Ballot Progress Reporting System, used by the Election Commission on voting day, the voter registry issued by the Election Commission to the Jumhooree Party, the voter registry 2013 published in the government gazette, and the Department of National Registration’s database, are enough to annul the presidential election held on 7 September 2013
  8. Article 111 of the Constitution states a second round of the Presidential Election must be held within 21 days. Supreme Court verdict no 2009/SC-C/02 states “The constitution mandates that all state institutions ensure obligations which carry specific constitutional dates must be carried out within the specified timeline. The only lawful justification not to do so would be if events that are not within the control of man occur, such as natural disasters, war….” This verdict was a unanimous Supreme Court verdict and hence, all state institutions must carry out constitutional duties, as stated in the constitution within the time period stated in the constitution.

With reference to the aforementioned points, I do not see it necessary to issue a ruling on Jumhooree Party’s claims.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

First round of new presidential election scheduled for October 19, with one day for re-registration

Additional reporting by Ahmed Nazeer

First-time voters, or eligible voters who wish to vote on Oct 19 somewhere other than their currently-registered location, must re-register.

Voter re-registration is open from 6:00pm-12:00am Wednesday Oct 9, and 9:00am-12:00am Thursday Oct 10. Forms are available at all island council offices, Addu City Council departments, diplomatic missions and at www.elections.gov.mv. In Malé forms will be accepted at the Elections Commission’s registration center on Handhuvaree Hingun.

Check your registration by SMSing 1414 ‘VIS ID#’, or call the hotline on the same number.

With the Elections Commission (EC) rapidly preparing to re-hold the presidential election’s first round October 19 in accordance with the timetable established by the Supreme Court verdict, Maldivians will have only 15 hours for re-registration.

The Supreme Court late Monday night (October 7) annulled the first round of the Maldives presidential election in a 4:3 decision. Citing a secret police report on alleged electoral irregularities, the court ordered fresh elections by October 20 with enhanced police and government involvement.

The Supreme Court verdict was issued despite unanimous positive assessment of the polling by more than a thousand local and international election observers, while the police report on which it was supposedly based has not been made public and was not shown to the EC’s defence lawyers.

In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the EC has decided to hold the presidential election on October 19, the commission announced yesterday.

“The commission is concerned and regrets the inconvenience that people might have to face because the election is close to the Eid holidays,” the EC noted.

Meanwhile, the government is preparing to shut down from October 11 until October 19 for the Eid al-Adha holidays.

In order to have the elections in the duration given by the Supreme Court, the EC can provide only one day for re-registration, said the commission.

The EC has appealed to all citizens who wish to re-register to do it as soon as the re-registration process is opened, which the commission announced would begin this evening.

Maldivians can re-register to vote from 6:00pm to 12:00am today and 9:00am to 6:00pm tomorrow, EC Secretary General Asim Abdul Sattar told local media.

Individuals who do not re-register during the allotted period will remain registered to vote in the location finalised in the second round’s voter registration list, said Sattar.

The EC will be accepting grievances and complaints, however they will not be able to provide a specific window of time to do so, he noted.

According to normal procedure the EC is legally required to provide a time-frame for complaints to be lodged prior to the re-registration process, however the commission’s dates are restricted due to the Supreme Court’s verdict, he added.

Re-registration is necessary for those intending to vote at a polling station other than that listed with the Elections Commission, such as a worker based on a resort island or student in Male. Similarly, Maldivians residing abroad are also required to re-register in order to vote in the country of residence.

Presidential candidates

Presidential candidates who ran in the first round of polling September 7 will not be asked to re-file their candidacy and no new candidates will be allowed to compete in the election,  the EC Secretary General told local media.

Since presidential hopefuls cannot withdraw their candidacy, the order candidates will appear on the ballot paper will remain the same for the re-running of the first round.

“The candidates cannot withdraw their names once they are arranged [for the ballot paper],” said Sattar.

President Mohamed Waheed, who received 5.13 percent of votes in the September 7 election, has made no indication of a decision to change his participation in the re-run, Sattar noted. If President Waheed decides to recall his candidacy, the commission will make a decision after consulting with its legal department.

Waheed’s vice presidential running mate, Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, announced yesterday (October 8 ) that he intends to maintain his new alliance with the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) going into the re-scheduled presidential elections.

Thasmeen and his DRP announced their decision to support former President Mohamed Nasheed in the run-off, previously scheduled for September 28, days after Waheed received just five percent of the popular vote.

Repeat first round presidential candidates – in order of their ballot placement – are Gasim Ibrahim, Incumbent President Mohamed Waheed, Abdulla Yameen, and former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Election funds

The Finance Ministry had agreed to provide MVR 30 million (US$1,939,230) to hold the election, EC Secretary General Asim Abdul Sattar told local media.

The commission’s calculations show that it will cost MVR 30 million (US$1,939,230) to print ballot papers, pay the officials and cover other costs, said Sattar.

The Finance Ministry had also agreed to provide MVR 27 million (US$1,747,575) for a second round runoff, if necessary.

The ministry will provide funds for the election as legally mandated, but some state-funded programs will have to be sacrificed to do so, Minister of Finance and Treasury Abdulla Jihad said yesterday.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Elections Commission consults with government over re-scheduled presidential election

Elections Commission (EC) members met with the government today in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order to consult relevant authorities within 72 hours of its verdict, regarding the re-scheduling fresh presidential elections by its October 20 deadline.

The Supreme Court late last night annulled the first round of the election in a 4:3 decision. Citing a secret police report on alleged electoral irregularities, the court ordered fresh elections by October 20 with enhanced police and government involvement.

After the Majlis meeting today, Independent Institutions Committee member Hamid Abdul Ghafoor described the verdict as “incomprehensible”, and as “technically and logistically not possible”.

The Supreme Court verdict was issued despite unanimous positive assessment of the polling by more than a thousand local and international election observers, while the police report on which it was supposedly based has not been made public and was not shown to the EC’s defence lawyers.

The EC was forced to postpone the presidential election’s second round, citing a lack of state cooperation that prevented the commission from holding a “free and fair vote without intimidation, aggression, undue influence or corruption” on September 28.

The announcement was made September 27, shortly before the EC secretariat was surrounded by Special Operations police with orders from Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz to take over the building and ballot papers should it proceed with election preparations.

Parliament

EC officials met with parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee at 12:30pm today, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ghafoor told Minivan News today.

Although committee meetings are normally closed to the public, with the EC’s consent the committee agreed to talk to the media openly about today’s proceedings, Ghafoor explained.

“EC officials refused to leave the Supreme Court last night until they were given a copy of the verdict, which wasn’t provided until 1:30am,” said Ghafoor.

“The Supreme Court totally changed the EC’s mandate in their verdict,” he continued. “They have created a mandate that is totally different from what the law requires.”

Ghafoor highlighted some of the inconsistencies and “constitutional contradictions” within the verdict.

“It requires one new staff member to be hired for each ballot box to conduct ‘new functions’, although it’s not clear what those functions will be,” explained Ghafoor. “That’s 470 new people that have to be hired and trained in the next 12 days.”

“Additionally, the constitution stipulates the final voter list is the EC’s responsibility, but the Supreme Court verdict requires that the commission consider the list provided by the Department of National Registration (DNR) as their primary source,” said Ghafoor.

“The problem with the DNR is that because of bad management there are various errors with their list, which is why the EC should be the final arbiter of the voter registry. The sole authority of the list is up to them according to the constitution,” he continued. “The Supreme Court verdict contradicts the constitution.”

By law it is up to the EC to decide election dates, however the constitutionally-mandated timeline “has been squashed”, noted Ghafoor. “The Supreme Court did not consult with the EC about the new timeline prior to issuing the verdict.”

In a previous meeting with the Independent Institutions Committee, the EC had said that the commission would require 19 to 21 days to conduct the election in a matter that was satisfactory and does justice to free and fair elections, Ghafoor explained.

“The more sinister aspect of this forced timeline, is that it opens up the process to corruption and vote rigging,” he highlighted.

The Supreme Court has made “a right royal mess of this”, he lamented.

The EC also told the parliamentary committee that they had requested to meet Supreme Court Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain today, as they wanted to consult all three branches of government, the executive, legislature, and judiciary, Ghafoor explained.

However, the Chief Justice instead agreed to meet the EC at his convenience tomorrow (October 9) at 9:00am.

“They are very professional in their approach, doing it by the book,” said Ghafoor. “We are very happy to have such a strong Elections Commission.”

State-funded programs to be sacrificed for elections

Meanwhile, Minister of Finance and Treasury Abdulla Jihad told local media today that the department was “legally obligated” to provide election funds, despite the lack of these available.

“We will arrange the funds even if it is from the contingency budget. But it will be an extremely difficult process. But we will provide funds for the elections. However, sacrifices will have to be made. We will have to stop some state-funded programs,” said Jihad.

He noted that the EC had not yet discussed the budget needed to re-hold the presidential election with the Finance Ministry.

In a previous interview with Minivan News, when asked what the EC would do if the Supreme Court annulled the first round results, EC Chair Fuwad Thowfeek noted: “The government has spent over MVR30 million (US$1,949,310) on the first round, there is no budget remaining [to hold both rounds again].”

“If it’s difficult for the government to provide the additional budget for the second round, there will be so many difficulties if the [results are annulled and] voting rounds are held again,” said Thowfeek.

The estimated cost of the presidential election was MVR96 million (US$6,213,600) – the now-annulled first round cost MVR69 million (US$4,466,025) and MVR27 million (US$1,747,575) was allotted for the second round, according to local media.

However, re-holding the election has reportedly increased the total estimated cost to over MVR 100million (US$6,472,500).

The government is currently relying on short-term treasury bills (T-bills) to “roll over” debts on a monthly basis to address the budgetary shortfall, as recurrent expenditures for 2013 were exceeded in April.

To supplement the state budget President Dr Mohamed Waheed has been seeking to secure multi-million dollar foreign loans from financial authorities in Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, India and China.

President’s Office

Thowfeek and EC Vice Chair Ahmed Fayaz met with President Waheed this morning (October 8 ) in the President’s Office. Local media reported that Vice President Mohamed Waheed Deen and Attorney General Azima Shakoor also attended.

During the meeting, President Waheed called upon the EC to carry out the Supreme Court’s order to hold the presidential election’s first round in accordance with the verdict.

Waheed assured the commissioners that the government would “give all its support and cooperation” to the EC, including budgetary, security, human resources and infrastructure assistance as required.

“It is especially important that the integrity of the entire elections process is enhanced and maintained,” Waheed emphasised.

He noted that ensuring the presidential election is held in a smooth and peaceful manner is the government’s priority and that it is important “everyone puts forward national interests ahead of everything else”.

The  government is meanwhile preparing to shut down for the Eid al-Adha holidays, which commence on October 11 through to October 19, a day before the Supreme Court’s election deadline.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Transparency International “gravely concerned” about safety of Maldives staff, volunteers

Transparency International has expressed “grave concern” about staff and volunteer safety and “alarm” over the intimidation and public allegations threatening its Transparency Maldives chapter.

“Transparency International is gravely concerned about the safety of chapter staff and volunteers following an attack on one of its volunteers and telephone threats received by chapter members,” the international anti-corruption NGO highlighted in a press statement issued today (October 7).

“There appears to be a negative campaign in the local media aimed at undermining the effectiveness of Transparency Maldives’ anti-corruption work. Last week a senior member of the cabinet publicly threatened to close Transparency Maldives down,” Transparency International noted.

“Transparency Maldives has always played an active and constructive role in advocating for government transparency and accountability. We call on the authorities to ensure the safety of its staff and volunteers,” stated Transparency International.

Transparency Maldives is part of the Transparency International anti-corruption movement that includes more than 100 chapters worldwide.

Death threats and street attack

“An elections program intern was attacked on the street and had her phone snatched away,” Transparency Maldives’ Advocacy and Communications Manager Aiman Rasheed told Minivan News today.

Death threats were issued to Transparency Maldives staff by an unknown caller who contacted the organisation’s office, explained Rasheed. Both incidents occurred within five day period, during the last week of September.

“During every election these things occur, it’s not abnormal. However, the situation in the country has worsened since the 2008 [presidential] election,” said Rasheed.

“At that time, murder was unheard of and stabbings were rare. Now the threats seem more real in the current environment [with tensions escalating],” he added.

Today a death threat tweet stating “We will slaughter all of you goats until there are none left” was directed at Transparency Maldives and the Maldives’ former UK High Commissioner Farah Didi.

In regard to the “negative media campaign” aimed at undermining Transparency Maldives’ anti-corruption work, Rasheed noted that the Maldives Media Council (MMC) and Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC) “will be aware of this” given their participation in the Elections Commission’s National Advisory Committee.

It is unclear whether MMC or MBC have taken actions to address these local media issues, but given the “general environment… a lot needs to be done in this situation” by regulatory authorities, he continued.

“Keeping [Transparency Maldives] staff and volunteers safe is our number one priority,” Rasheed declared.

In light of the recent death threats and attack of an intern, Transparency Maldives is urging staff and volunteers to be more careful, he explained.

“We are monitoring the environment and updating all our people,” said Rasheed.

Staff training has been conducted as part of Transparency Maldives’ security priorities, and the organisation’s electronic equipment and office are closely guarded, he explained.

“All [election] observers and volunteers are trained to remove themselves from any situation if any violence occurs,” he noted. “Their purpose is to observe whether violence has occurred, not to determine who hit whom.”

Transparency conducted an extensive election monitoring program, fielding a team of 400 election monitors during the first round of September 7. The organisation stated 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.

Transparency Maldives called on all parties to act with restraint and uphold the constitution to allow for a run-off election to take place.

The Supreme Court on September 23, however, issued an indefinite injunction halting the second round of the presidential election, which had been scheduled for September 28.

Following the Supreme Court injunction, Transparency Maldives 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 following week, State Minister for Home Affairs and the Registrar of NGOs Abdulla Mohamed declared that Transparency Maldives and the Tourism Employees Association of the Maldives (TEAM) were under investigation for “unlawful acts” and warned the NGOs that organisations acting outside of law would be dissolved.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Ali Azim arrested on third consecutive night of MDP protests

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters protested for the third consecutive day on Sunday (September 29), resulting in confrontations between the police and protesters with multiple arrests – including that of party parliament members.

Protests began at around 2:00pm near the FDI Station on Fareedhee Magu – the closest protesters can go to the Supreme Court building, as the area remains cordoned off by police and military forces.

Crowds grew and thinned alternatively throughout a period of 12 hours, with the main confrontations occurring after 10:00pm.

Minivan News observed that earlier in the night the MNDF was in charge of security operations in the area. About 400 protesters, while playing campaign songs and chanting slogans – “Forward, forward, swiftly forward”, “Give us our right to vote”, “We don’t want to selectively follow parts of the constitution” – were peaceful.

Police, including Special Operations (SO) officers, took over security operations later in the night, around which time the atmosphere became more heated.

Leading the protest were MDP Vice Presidential Candidate Dr Mustafa Lutfi, MP Ali Azim, former foreign minister Ahmed Naseem, and former Attorney General Dhiyana Saeed.

MDP MP Ali Azim was addressing the protesters from a campaign truck close to the police barricades when SO officers took him under arrest. A video on social media shows SO officers run up to the parliament member, pull him off the truck and onto the ground before dragging him away through the crowd and past the line of barricades.

Eye witnesses say that police kicked him and hit him with batons prior to dragging him to their vehicle.

The MDP has today released a press statement saying that the party “harshly condemns the brutal arrest of Ali Azim”.

“This is an act to intimidate the people and a violation of freedoms provided in the constitution.”

Protesters threw stones and empty plastic bottles over the barricades into the police lines, while police used batons, pepper spray and a substance with a strong chemical smell which caused wheezing and difficulty in breathing.

“I don’t know what this is, but having felt the pain of being pepper-sprayed and teargassed, I can tell you this is a different substance. An irritant of some sort. It smarts so very bad and feels like I have sand in my eyes. My skin feels like it is peeling away and burned,” said a 34 year-old male protester affected by the substance during last night’s protests.

“Do I deserve this in return for asking for justice? For demanding an elected government?” he asked, while pouring Coca Cola over his face in an attempt to regain sight and take away some of the pain.

According to police media a total of eight arrests were made last night. Police denied that any substance or chemical besides pepper spray was used to control the protests.

“Nothing except pepper spray. No new chemicals were used,” the spokesperson stated.

Minivan News observed at least 13 male protesters being taken into police custody after snatch teams of SO officers went into crowds and chased them.

Many of the protesters were frisked in the presence of media behind police lines prior to being taken into the police vehicles – a practice which has not previously been observed at the protests following the February 7 controversial transfer of power.

After consecutive and frequent SO officer charges into the crowd, protesters thinned out around 1.45am, leaving a few dozen people standing by in small crowds, defiantly chanting “justice now”. Police left the area at approximately 2:00am when protests died down for the night.

The MDP has said that it will continue the protests and has called on the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) and the prosecutor general to investigate the arrests of the DRP MP and other protesters.

MP Ali Azim was brought to court at 2.30pm this afternoon and his detention has been extended for seven days.

Meanwhile, police have said they are investigating four MDP MPs for contempt of court and threatening police, judges and their families. These are Feydhoo MP Alhan Fahmy, Malé MPs Imthiyaz Fahmy, Mohamed Rasheed (Bonda) and Reeko Moosa Manik.

Furthermore police arrested Malé MP Hamid Abdul Gafoor today to ensure his presence at a Criminal Court trial tomorrow on alleged possession of alcohol.

MDP MP Ali Waheed’s car was vandalised in the evening, and a motorcycle and car were torched at 3:00 am. The police also said wife of a policeman was hit by a motorcycle at noon. She is eight months pregnant.

MP Ali Azim arrested during Sunday night’s protests

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Death threats force Elections Commission to seek police assistance

Ongoing death threats received by the Elections Commission (EC)’s permanent staff and polling station officials have prompted the commission to file a report with the Maldives Police Service (MPS) today.

A lack of state cooperation prevented the commission from holding a “free and fair [presidential election] vote without intimidation, aggression, undue influence or corruption” on September 28 as constitutionally-mandated, the (EC) announced on Friday night, shortly before it was surrounded by a police barricade.

Lack of police support, “some political parties” threatening to set ballot boxes on fire, and death threats made against Elections Commission members, staff, and officials involved in the voting process were highlighted as reasons for postponing the second round run-off, which would otherwise have taken place yesterday.

Special Operations police surrounded the EC secretariat on Friday, with orders from Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz to take over the building and ballot papers should it proceed with holding the election.

In addition to the MPS stating it would not cooperate with the EC and ceasing to providing security requested by the commission for the second round, police prevented EC staff and visitors from entering the secretariat on Friday. However, staff were later allowed to return after a series of phone calls between Riyaz and EC Chair Fuwad Thowfeek.

As of Thursday, the EC insisted that it was constitutionally mandated to hold the runoff within 21 days of the first round, in spite of an order from the Supreme Court to suspend the election indefinitely. This prompted Assistant Commissioner of Police Hassan Habeeb to call the Elections Commission Chair on Thursday night (September 26) and warn that police would not allow the election to take place.

Death threats continue

“It’s not just myself and my family, but Elections Commission staff, including most directors and even some heads of ballot boxes and other polling station staff who have received threatening messages that they and their families will be killed,” Elections Commission Chair Fuwad Thowfeek told Minivan News today.

“They are very much scared about the situation. Some are even afraid to come out of their homes. It’s very sad,” Thowfeek lamented.

“I hope we will be safe, we have been trying to follow the constitution,” he said.

Thowfeek said the EC had sent a report to the MPS detailing the threats, phone numbers the messages were sent from, and other relevant information.

He noted that the EC was still considering whether to send an official letter to the Telecommunications Authority regarding the death threats “because we are waiting for action to be taken through the MPS, since they have the authority to investigate.”

The following SMS was sent to EC and polling station officials yesterday:

“What you did to rig the vote near ballot boxes will be exposed. YOU resign. Or else even your family will be killed. Allah Akbar we are with the religion.”

On Thursday senior Election’s Commission staff received the following message around 6:00pm:

“We will kill anyone who allies with Fuwad Thowfeek against the Supreme Court order and the Maldivian constitution and continues with voting activities. Allah Akbar.”

Additionally, during an interview Minivan News conducted with Thowfeek last week, he noted that “some of us are getting threats from unknown people. I have received SMS messages saying ‘be careful when you come out on the street, you’ll be stabbed in the stomach’.”

Only the EC’s human resource section and other section heads of the commission have a list of all election officials and temporary staff, explained Thowfeek.

The commission had provided the four political party presidential candidate representatives with a list of all elections officials, including polling station staff, but that list did not include their phone or ID card numbers, he noted.

Police integrity

The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) called for the police to provide any assistance the EC requires to go ahead with the second round.

Earlier this month the PIC determined Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz violated the Police Act by posting a letter on Twitter urging police officers not to vote for former President Mohamed Nasheed and recommended administrative action be taken against the police chief.

Minivan News enquired with the PIC whether Commissioner Riyaz would be able to impartially issue orders to prevent the EC from conducting election preparations and holding the second round runoff, or whether the MPS – under his leadership – would be able to impartially investigate the death threats EC staff have been receiving.

PIC Director General Fathimath Sareera Ali Shareef told Minivan News today that she needed to consult with their legal department and would reply as soon as possible. She had not responded at time of press.

Elections Commission secure

Police meanwhile remained outside the Elections Commission until yesterday (Saturday) evening, guarding the secretariat and patrolling the road, noted Thowfeek.

“It was our request to have the police in front of the security room, on the ground floor [of the secretariat], and surrounding the building so nobody could enter from behind. They are keeping full security of the building for the protection of the commission and our own safety,” said Thowfeek.

The Elections Commission confirmed there was “no danger” its data could be tampered with because it remained “fully protected” and is being “closely monitored”.

The commission’s server was intentionally shut down on Friday night to prevent anyone from accessing data through a “remote medium”, explained Thowfeek.

Additionally, beginning Friday night, the EC established a rotational schedule to ensure staff are present in the EC’s secretariat 24 hours a day, seven days a week, “so there is no chance an outsider can get in” and tamper with any materials or data, he continued.

“Our own staff are present in the IT, security, and records section rooms – the most important places are constantly monitored,” said Thowfeek.

Police “misunderstanding”

Thowfeek also explained the “misunderstanding” between the MPS and the EC that led Special Operations police to surround the secretariat and prevent staff or visitors from entering, with orders from Police Commissioner Riyaz to take over the commission and arrest staff who disobeyed the Supreme Court order to halt presidential election preparations.

After a Raajje TV journalist called to enquire about the situation, Thowfeek explained to the reporter that “even staff and visitors were not allowed” to enter the EC.

This led Police Commissioner Riyaz to contact Thowfeek and explain that police were sent to protect the commission against any “angry people” trying to enter the EC and harm its staff, according to the EC Chair.

Riyaz also instructed Thowfeek “not to listen to stories from different people about the situation”.

Thowfeek then sent the EC’s Secretary General and Director General downstairs to confirm what was occurring. The commission’s IT and coordination section directors had been prevented from entering the building and police informed the Secretary General that visitors would not be allowed to enter on Saturday either.

The EC Chair again contacted Riyaz and explained that the action being taken by the special operations police differed from what the Police Commissioner had said the MPS officers would do.

Fifteen minutes later, Elections Commission staff with proper identification were allowed into the building and the commission was informed that invited visitors would be permitted to enter as well.

Minivan News had journalists present inside and outside the EC secretariat building throughout the events and did not observe protesters present at the time Special Operations police surrounded the building.

International observer visits

EC officials had previously planned to meet the British High Commissioner in the commission’s secretariat on Saturday, however after the EC’s Secretary General was informed by police Friday night they would not be able to hold the meeting in the commission, it was relocated to the High Commissioner’s hotel, explained Thowfeek.

“The British High Commissioner was here during the first round and commended our work,” said Thowfeek. “He came to see the second round and was disappointed when he found out it had been stopped.”

“He hoped for a quick solution and wished us [the EC] well,” he added.

A team of Nigerian election observers also arrived on Friday and were “very much disappointed” polling did not take place, explained Thowfeek. However, because they “made such a long trip” the EC has still been working with the West African observers and providing information about the electoral process.

The Danish Ambassador and the Commonwealth [observation group] Chair met with EC officials Friday, noted Thowfeek.

“We have had no news from any other [international election] observers,” he added.

Election not possible before November 11, says EC

Holding the second round – or another first round – of the presidential election will now “not be possible before November 11 within existing elections laws”, Thowfeek told Minivan News.

While the EC usually requires 60 days of preparation time for the whole process, “even if we don’t waste a single minute” 45 days will still be required before another presidential election can take place, he continued.

“We have to update the voter list, gazette it, receive complaints and input from the public regarding the list, see who will be present where on that date and allow them to re-register accordingly, add just-turned 18 year-olds and remove anyone who has died during the [voter registry updating] process, etc,” he noted.

Thowfeek explained that general and presidential elections law mandates specific periods of time are given for each step of the election preparation process, for example the voter registry must be published in the government gazette 45 days before polling, 10 days are given to submit complaints, and five days are provided to file cases of unaddressed complaints with the High Court.

“If special laws are made, then maybe it will be possible,” said Thowfeek.

“[Timetables within] the existing laws have to be rescheduled and another set of laws passed [before the November 11 constitutional election deadline],” he elaborated. “The other difficulty is that the Majlis is currently in recess. They may reconvene next week, but any law [passed] has to be ratified by the president.”

“We have just 42 days left before [the end of the presidential term on] November 11, so time is limited,” he added.

The date for the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Jumhooree Party’s case against the Elections Commission remained unscheduled at time of press.

HRCM and civil society support for elections

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) has called on the Supreme Court and state institutions to ensure that Maldivians not be stripped of the right to vote, guaranteed by constitutional article 26 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and to ensure that there would be an elections within the duration stated in the constitution.

HRCM also called on everyone not to pave way for unrest and to hasten all work that had to be done to uphold the constitution.

The commission also called on the EC to solve all the issues with the voters’ registration.

HRCM further called on the authorities to take legal action against those to pose death threats and threats of violence and also called on everyone to give high priority to national interest.

Yesterday Transparency Maldives appealed to all actors “especially the Supreme Court, to uphold the spirit of the Constitution and electoral deadlines and respect people’s electoral choice.”

The NGO expressed its “concern over the delay of the second round of elections and rising tensions as Transparency Maldives did not receive any reports that suggest systematic fraud in its nationwide observation and no credible evidence that supports such allegations has been made public.”

Transparency Maldives, the HRCM and the Maldivian Democracy Network observed the first round and praised the EC’s free and fair electoral process.

Global election support

Global condemnation followed the Supreme Court’s issuing of the injunction, with the UK, EU, and the Commonwealth specifically calling for the run-off to go ahead as scheduled.

International election observers unanimously commended the first round of polling, calling for losing parties to accept defeat and allow the second round to proceed as scheduled.

The Commonwealth’s human rights and democracy arm has since “expressed concern at developments” in the Maldives following the first round of elections.

Business as usual

The Election’s Commission is meanwhile “going ahead” with preparations for the upcoming local council and parliamentary elections.

“We are doing the work for local council elections to take place in December [2013], said Thowfeek.

“[Additionally] last night we issued one draft document for constituencies. According to the law, eight months before the existing term of Parliament expires, we have to check the population figures from various localities and [based on the data] create a report on how constituencies should be formed for the next election,” explained Thowfeek.

Currently there are 77 seats in the People’s Majlis, however 85 seats will be needed, he added.

The Parliamentary election is scheduled to take place on March 2014.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

HRCM condemns post-election political unrest

Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) has released a press statement condemning the current cases of political unrest occurring in the Maldives following the first round of the presidential elections held on September 7.

“HRCM condemns the use of inhumane rhetoric which is against national interest and provokes unrest in the community, calls to cause harm to people, the damaging of peoples’ property and campaign offices of political parties,” the statement read.

“The commission also strongly condemns the acts of physical violence, the use of inappropriate language, the damaging of state property, and other acts by members of parliament which demeans the respect and dignity of the parliament in the parliamentary session held on September 23.”

“While freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are important rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Maldives, this commission advises all persons to exercise these rights within the limits outlined in the constitution and laws. This commission also calls out on everyone to refrain from any actions which may give rise to discord or unrest,” the statement concluded.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)