Tag: Progressive Party of Maldives

Run-off parties begin signing voter register

Both parties with candidates competing in Saturday’s presidential run-off have begun signing the voters lists this evening.

Local media reported that the Elections Commission had stated that all lists needed to be signed, rather than just those that had been changed after re-registration as had been the case previously.

The court mandated procedure, requiring all candidates sign the amended voter lists before the vote can proceed has caused problems in the run-up to both polls scheduled over the last month.

Police moved to block the October 19 vote after both the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and the Jumhooree Party refused to sign the lists. Last Saturday’s successful poll also came under threat when both parties again refused to sign the lists shortly before reversing their decision under intense international pressure.

The PPM’s candidate Abdulla Yameen also suggested he would not sign the voter lists for the run-off – originally scheduled for last Sunday (November 10) – before the Supreme Court stepped in to delay the vote.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Candidates asked to sign voter lists on Thursday and Friday

Presidential run-off candidates will be given the opportunity to sign the voters register on November 14 and 15, the Elections Commission (EC) has told local media.

The court mandated procedure, requiring all candidates sign the amended voter lists before the vote can proceed has caused problems in the run-up to both polls scheduled over the last month.

Police moved to block the October 19 vote after both the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and the Jumhooree Party refused to sign the lists. Last Saturday’s successful poll also came under threat when both parties again refused to sign the lists shortly before reversing their decision under intense international pressure.

The PPM’s candidate Abdulla Yameen also suggested he would not sign the voter lists for the run-off – originally scheduled for last Sunday (November 10) – before the Supreme Court stepped in to delay the vote.

The EC has been accepting and assessing complaints regarding re-registration today, after the window to lodge grievances closed at midday. The re-registration process was completed yesterday.

Local media has also reported that the candidates have both expressed a preference for maintaining the same numbers on Saturday’s ballot. The Maldivian Democratic Party’s Mohamed Nasheed will again be listed as candidate number 4, whilst Yameen will be candidate number 3.

EC Chair Fuwad Thowfeek told Sun Online that transportation of the ballots to the atolls would begin on Thursday.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed to face Yameen in run-off as polls mirror annulled Sept 7 results

No candidate has reached 50 percent in the Maldives’ much anticipated revote, with the uncertainty over whether the country would return to the polls at 7:30am tomorrow morning as scheduled after second-placed Abdulla Yameen indicated that he would refuse to sign the voter registry.

Just as in the annulled first round Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) candidate Mohamed Nasheed finished ahead, with Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) candidate Abdulla Yameen finishing in second place.

The Jumhooree Party’s (JP) Gasim Ibrahim – whose displeasure with the first round eventually led the Supreme Court to order a re-vote – again finished in third place, missing out on the second round.

The Elections Commission is due to announce provisional results later this evening, with present vote percentages near-mirroring those of the annulled first round – although the vast majority of incumbent President Mohamed Waheed’s first round five percent support appears to have transitioned to the PPM, giving it a decisive lead over the JP.

Despite winning a clear place in the run-off, Yameen said he would be unwilling to consent to polls before November 13.

“No election is not going to happen tomorrow. The simple reason being that the Elections Commission is not prepared for that. The Elections Commission does not have a list that has been pre-signed by the candidates. What they have is a fresh list. So a fresh list for us to review and sign, for verification we need at least 48 hours. So the list they have we are not sure whether that is the list they had for today’s voting,” Yameen claimed.

“So until and unless we are able to ascertain that this is the same list, we are unable to sign that. So the Elections Commission is not prepared. What they are claiming is that they have the same list but unfortunately if it were the same list our signatures or our representatives’ signatures would have been on the list. But unfortunately these are fresh sheets. So we are not sure whether this is the same list we used for voting today. So primarily it is a shortcoming on the part of the Elections Commission. It’s nothing to do with PPM or any other party,” he alleged.

Polling began at 7:00am today and continued without major incidents before closing at 3:30pm. Today’s morning turnout appeared notably less than the 88 percent of eligible voters who cast their ballots in the September 7 poll, however the numbers picked up later in the day leading to an anticipated turnout in the low 80s.

Concerns remain over the fate of the second round, however, with both JP and PPM leaders initially reluctant to sign the necessary electoral register for the run-off.

“It looks as if they are not so keen on fulfilling their duties and responsibilities. Signing these lists is a duty given to candidates and their reps by the Supreme Court,” said Elections Commissioner Fuwad Thowfeek.

The JP would later accuse the Elections Commission of anti-campaigning by revealing the party’s reluctance to sign the new lists.

Signature of the lists was mandated within the Supreme Court’s annulment ruling, with the government aligned party’s prior reluctance to sign leading to the delay of the previously scheduled election on October 19.

Midway through today’s polling, the JP’s Youth Wing Leader Moosa Anwar submitted a letter to the Supreme Court, requesting that the second round of elections scheduled for Sunday be annulled.

Anwar argued that the short period between rounds would deprive candidates of the opportunity to campaign, or to endorse a run-off candidate.

As tonight’s result became apparent, the MDP released a statement criticising attempts to further delay the election.

“Our opponents are, once again, trying to subvert democracy by refusing to sign the voter lists for tomorrow’s election,” said MDP Deputy Chairperson Ali Shiyam.

The MDP called on the international community to do all they can to ensure an elected president is sworn in by the constitutional deadline, which expires at midnight on Sunday (October 10).

“The international community must apply pressure – including targeted, punitive sanctions – on those individuals who seek to undermine Maldivian democracy,” the party stated.

Arrangements for an interim period were addressed in the Supreme Court today, where a Majlis motion to have the speaker of the house assume the presidency was overruled by the court’s insistence that President Dr Mohamed Waheed remain in power.

The same four judges who supported the annulment of the first round of the election voted to uphold their original ruling, meaning that President Waheed and his government would remain in power.

Waheed, who had withdrawn his name from today’s ballot following a poor showing in September, has previously stated that he has no desire to remain in his post beyond the end of his term.

Elsewhere today, however, officers from the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) began circulating an appeal calling on their fellow soldiers not to obey “unlawful” orders issued by President Waheed or his political appointees, following the expiry of his presidential term at midnight on November 10.

“We do not believe there will be a president and a Commander in Chief on 11 November 2013 if there is no president elect,” read the document signed by 73 officers described by one MNDF source as the “backbone of the military”.

“And we believe the positions of President, the cabinet and all individuals  in political posts will expire at 12:00 midnight on 10 November 2013… Hence, we call on all soldiers to respect the Constitution,” the soldiers stated.

The MNDF promoted over 300 soldiers on Friday.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court accepts case to invalidate transfer of power to speaker

The Supreme Court has accepted a petition to invalidate a People’s Majlis resolution authorizing the Speaker to assume the presidency in the absence of a president elect by the end of the current presidential term on November 11.

The case was filed by by Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) council member and former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s lawyer Ibrahim ‘Wadde’ Waheed.

Speaking to Minivan News, Wadde said that he did not believe that the parliament’s resolution constituted a resolution, and said he did not know any legal term with which to refer to the parliament’s decision as it was against the constitution and laws.

”The decision is clearly against the constitution and I have requested the Supreme Court to invalidate the decision,” he said. ”The parliament on October 27 passed that decision that says that all powers of president must be transferred to the parliament Speaker or someone in the parliament.”

He explained that he had originally filed the case on October 29 before the Supreme Court accepted it today.

On October 27, the resolution was passed at a sitting scheduled in response to a letter to Speaker Abdulla Shahid from President Dr Mohamed Waheed requesting parliament “to take initiative in finding a solution to any legal issues that will arise if a new president is not elected by the end of the current term [on November 11].”

The resolution was submitted by MDP parliamentary group leader and MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih and supported by MDP MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik.

In a Q&A with the speaker Minivan News asked his opinion on the government aligned MP’s suggestion that the Supreme Court should decide on interim arrangements.

”We have had some MPs calling on the military to take over. I think these individuals are very unfamiliar with democracy. And democratic principles. And it is a shame they sit in a house which is supposed to represent the people,” responded Shahid.

During the interview he also expressed his hope that President Dr Waheed will respect the resolution as it was he who initiated it.

”He wanted the parliament to initiate and tell him what the parliament thinks. The parliament is the representative body of the people of this country. And the parliament overwhelmingly, with the majority of the total parliament, adopted this resolution,” he told Minivan News.

The same day, Waheed also submitted another case to the court asking it to rule that the MDP MP Ahmed Hamza’s appointment to the judicial watchdog – the Judicial Services Commission  – was conducted in breach of the constitution.

Waheed also submitted a case to the Supreme Court requesting it to rule that Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party Leader and MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali was disqualified as an MP.

In addition to these cases, Wadde – alongside Jumhooree Coalition member ‘Madhanee Ihthihaadh’ (Civil Alliance) President Sheikh Mohamed Didi – filed a case in the apex court challenging the candidacy of the MDP’s Mohamed Nasheed.

This filing of this particular case was criticised by both the president and senior PPM leadership.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PPM member asks Supreme Court to remove DRP leader from parliament

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) council member and prominent lawyer Mohamed ‘Wadde’ Waheed has filed a case at the Supreme Court requesting the court disqualify Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Leader and MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali from parliament.

Wadde yesterday told local media that Thasmeen took a MVR2.9million (US$188,067) loan from Parliament Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim and did not pay the money back in accordance with a Civil Court ruling.

Nazim filed a case at the Civil Court in 2011 to recover MVR1.9million (US$124,513) unpaid out of the MVR2.9 Million (US$188,067) Thasmeen took from him as a loan.

Article 73(c) of the constitution states: “A person shall be disqualified from election as, a member of the People’s Majlis, or a member of the People’s Majlis immediately becomes disqualified, if he has a decreed debt which is not being paid as provided in the judgment.”

Wadde said that, although Thasmeen had now paid all the money, he did not pay according to the Civil Court ruling, which required the repayment of MVR320,000 (US$20,779) each month for six consecutive months to clear the debt.

The Civil Court ruling came in April 2011, with Thasmeen unsuccessfully appealing the case at the High Court the same month.

In June 2012, Nazim filed another case at the Civil Court because Thasmeen was not paying as per the Civil Court resulting in the court issuing a warrant freezing all the bank accounts of Thasmeen and ordering the Immigration Department to hold Thasmeen’s passport.

Lawyer Wadde was chosen to contest the Kaashidhoo parliamentary by-election for the PPM in March 2012, before the party decided to support now-MDP MP Abdulla Jabir – then a member of the Jumhooree Party – prompting public criticism from Wadde.

The lawyer was also at odds with his party’s senior leadership last month after filing a case in the Supreme Court challenging opposition MDP candidate and former President Mohamed Nasheed’s candidacy.

In October Wadde also submitted a case to the Supreme Court seeking a ruling against the motion passed by parliament to appoint Speaker Abdulla Shahid as interim head of state in the instance that an elected president cannot be installed by the constitutionally mandated date, November 11.

The same day, Wadde also submitted another case to the court asking it to rule that the MDP MP Ahmed Hamza’s appointment to the judicial watchdog – the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – was conducted in breach of the constitution.

Last night, the MDP issued a statement condemning the filing of the case against Thasmeen, alleging that the PPM was trying to undermine the constitution through the Supreme Court.

The party called upon the PPM to stop all of its works against the spirit of democracy.

The MDP said the PPM was using the Supreme Court to defeat political opponents because is understood that it had been defeated in the political field.

The Supreme Court ruled on October 24 that both MDP MP Ali Azim DRP MP Mohamed Nashiz be stripped of their parliamentary seats over decreed debt. The ruling was subsequently rejected by the Parliamentary Privileges Committee, with scuffles ensuing between the military and MPs at the subsequent Majlis session.

The current MDP and DRP alignment constitutes a simple majority in parliament.

The party also said that the citizens would not allow the PPM to use courts under the influence of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom to deprive the MDP of its majority in parliament.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Majlis accepts bill to criminalise tourism boycotts

With additional reporting by Daniel Bosley

The People’s Majlis has today accepted a bill prohibiting tourism boycotts, with 30 members voting for, 30 members voting against, and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Abdulla Shahid casting the deciding vote as speaker of the house.

The tourism boycott bill would criminalize calls for a boycott, as well as the supporting or endorsing of a boycott, participating in a tourism boycott, or any act that would incite fear amongst tourists.

Amendments to the penal code were also introduced in the Majlis today, with MDP MP Imthiyaz Fahmy submitting amendments to a number of articles, including article 81 – under which MDP presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed is currently being charged.

The boycott bill – submitted by the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP Ali Arif – has now been sent to the Majlis Economic Committee.

Depending on the level of participation in the boycott, those found guilty could be fined MVR150,000 (US$9740), have their trade permits cancelled, or have any honors or privileges awarded by the state revoked.

Discussions of a tourism boycott have always been particularly sensitive in the Maldives, with the country reliant on the industry which contributes over 70 percent of the country’s GDP.

Government ministers have in the past described the industry as “sacred”.

A selective tourism boycott labelled the ‘Maldives Travel Advisory’ appeared in the months following the contested transfer of power in February 2012, although the website was soon taken down.

Similarly, Nasheed himself told the Financial Times in July last year that tourists planning to visit the Maldives should cancel their holidays.

This call was not repeated, however, with the party’s National Council never agreeing to adopt such a policy.

Removals from existing code

In addition to removing Penal Code’s Article 81, Imthiyaz Fahmy proposed removing Articles 75 and 87.

Article 81 of the penal code regards public servant using authority to arrest or detain innocent persons.

“It shall be an offense for any public servant by reason of the authority of office he is in to detain or arrest in a manner contrary to law. Person guilty of this offense shall be subjected to exile or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding MRF 2,000,” reads the article.

Former President Nasheed is currently being charged under Article 81 for the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed – an incident that precipitated Nasheed’s ouster in February 2012.

The arrest followed the failure of parliament and the Judicial Services Commission to taken action over an extensive list of allegations against Mohamed.

The Nasheed trial subsequently stalled at the high court level after the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court – specially assembled for the case – was disputed.

The composition of the court and the conduct of the trial was also criticised by UN Special Rapporteur Gabriella Knaul as “arbitary” and of questionable legality.

The Progressive Party of Maldives called for the trial to be resumed earlier this month, though not further action has yet been taken in the courts.

Penal code article 75 concerns the making of false charges: “Whoever institutes a claim against another person with the intent to cause inconvenience, loss or injury to that person without lawful grounds shall be subjected to a fine not exceeding MRF 2000.”

Section 87 of the code relates to the failure to assist public servant in his duties, with offenders subject to exile, six months imprisonment, or a MVR500 fine.

The amendments come at a time when several MDP MPs, including Fahmy, are being investigated for contempt of court and for criticising the judiciary.

The current penal code was written in 1968. Work on a new penal code started in 2008, but it is still at committee stage.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Defiant Attorney General Azima Shakoor voted out of office

A parliamentary no-confidence motion against Attorney General Azima Shakoor has passed with 41 votes today (October 29).

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) filed the motion, claiming Azima had demeaned the constitution, parliamentary powers and the integrity of the Attorney General’s post by advocating against the Elections Commission (EC) in September’s vote annulment case.

The party also accused her of attempting to benefit her political party in presidential elections, and advising government officials against attending parliamentary committees.

According to Majlis Speaker Abdulla Shahid, Azima did not attend today’s Majlis sitting and did not respond in speech or writing to any of the allegations made against her.

However, in an emotional statement addressed to the Speaker and shared with local media, Azima stressed that she had acted within the law and accused the MDP of pursuing a “personalized vendetta.”

“It is not the Majlis that I will be held accountable to on the day after tomorrow. It is to Allah. On that day, I will be accountable without any fear. All of you know I will not stray from the path of justice for worldly gains or for a job. You will know I will not make a deal,” she said.

Speaking in the AG’s defense, MPs of the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) stressed that Azima had not committed any unlawful acts, and as such the no confidence motion was unjust.

The PPM boycotted the vote, but PPM MP Ahmed Mahloof voted for the no-confidence motion. In addition to the MDP, the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) supported the motion. Five MPs voted against.

No confidence

The MDP submitted the no confidence motion against Azima on September 25 with the signatures of 26 MPs.

In the motion, the MDP noted that as Attorney General, Azima had advocated against an independent state institution – the EC – that she was mandated to defend.

Following the first round of elections on September 7, third placed Jumhooree Party sought to annul the vote, alleging widespread electoral fraud. Azima intervened in the case, presented a police intelligence document and asked for an investigation.

A copy of the document was leaked on social media. It alleged 18,486 irregularities on the voter registry. The Supreme Court annulled the election on October 7 and ordered a re-vote.

In her intervention she “advocated against the Elections Commission, discredited the institution, prioritized political party interests, and worked against the constitutional principles, state and public interest,” said the MDP.

The party suggested that the AG had abused her position to influence elections and in doing so had obstructed the election of a new government.

It also accused Azima of infringing upon the parliamentary powers by advising government officials and the security forces not to attend a Majlis committee set up to investigate the controversial transfer of power on February 7, 2012.

“Taken together, these actions clearly demonstrate that the Attorney General has destroyed constitutional norms and democratic laws,” the motion read.

“The Attorney General has demeaned the Constitution and the integrity of the post of Attorney General and betrayed the Attorney General’s responsibilities and the Maldivian nation,” it added.

“Head held high”

In a statement shared with local media, Azima criticized MDP presidential candidate and former President Mohamed Nasheed.

“If I am dismissed from my job because certain individuals believe I am obstructing such a man [Nasheed] from coming to power, and if I lose my job, and if I lose my job because of this reason, and because I did not join them like you [Shahid] did, I see it as my sacrifice for this country. I will leave my job proud, with my head held high,” she told Haveeru.

If Nasheed took over the presidency, he would weaken the state and the country’s sovereignty, and weaken Maldives’ Islamic faith Azima alleged.

“I am saying so because I know so. However, I have not committed any act that violates the law. And I have not participated in any political activities. In my term, in matters relating to him [Nasheed] I acted fairly, within the law,” she said.

She alleged that, as president, Nasheed had sold part of the Maldives’ territory to another country – information which she had shared with the Majlis’ National Security Committee. Furthermore, Nasheed had attempted to include Jewish cultural education in the national curriculum, she claimed.

“I do not accept defying Islam and the Prophet. I believe the country has maintained its sovereignty because Maldivians have maintained the Islamic faith. I do not believe any other religion but Islam should exist in this country. This is my belief,” she said.

On the state’s decision to intervene in the Supreme Court’s vote annulment case, Azima said it was her duty to act as she had received credible evidence of electoral fraud. However, she said the state had not advocated for or against a vote annulment.

“I had to take action when I received credible evidence of repeated voting and votes cast by thousands of dead people, individuals who have not yet been born, and individuals who had not made ID cards through the Department of National Registration. Similarly, the state must be concerned when people made passports using those [fake] ID cards.

“These are matters that I would be questioned on if I did not take any action. Since these are matters that can be proven if a proper investigation is done, I did so with courage,” she said.

She also criticized Speaker Abdulla Shahid for helping MPs evade the courts, for supporting MPs who were in contempt of court and those who had committed criminal acts. Moreover, she said the Majlis had not followed the legal norms in dismissing a cabinet member.

“Today you are the judges and you have written your verdict without allowing the accused a right of response,” she said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

No-confidence motion delayed after Attorney General calls in sick

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid has postponed the no-confidence motion against Attorney General (AG) Azima Shakoor, initially scheduled for today (October 28).

According to Majlis officials the speaker made the decision to delay for two days after Shakoor informed him that she was unwell and not able to attend the parliament session.

Article 101(b) of the constitution states that cabinet members must be given at least fourteen days notice of any debate concerning no-confidence motions against themselves, and that the individual has the right to defend themselves – both verbally and in writing – in the sittings of the People’s Majlis

Parliament received the motion on September 25, with the ensuing notice to the AG being delivered on October 1.

The motion has now been rescheduled for October 30.

Cabinet members against whom no-confidence motions are raised are allowed to sit in in the parliamentary debate on the matter. At the sitting, they are given the opportunity defend themselves against the claims raised.

An official from parliament stated that it was the cabinet minister’s decision whether or not they used the opportunity to defend themselves. He said that,while the parliament could proceed with the motion even though the minister is unable to attend, it is at the discretion of the speaker to decide to postpone the motion.

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

The no-confidence motion was submitted to the parliament on September 25 with the signature of 26 Members of Parliament (MPs) – 16 more than is stipulated in the constitution’s article 101(a).

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) previously decided to pursue a no-confidence motion against the AG during a contingency meeting of the party’s National Council on September 20 .

During the debate, MDP MP Ahmed Sameer announced that the party’s parliamentary group had prepared a no-confidence motion against the AG, contending that she had neglected her duties and had advocated on behalf of a political party against the Elections Commission (EC), a state institution.

Meanwhile, Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Parliamentary Group’s Deputy Leader Moosa Zameer at the time said that the party would not support the removal of a former council member of the party.

However, with the support of at least six out of ten MPs of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) – which has pledged support to MDP presidential candidate and former President Mohamed Nasheed in the upcoming election – the MDP would have enough votes in parliament to pass the no-confidence motion.

AG Shakoor was approved to her post by 38 votes in favour in parliament on July 31, with 31 MPs having voted against.

Formerly the lawyer for PPM leader and former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Shukoor was initially appointed AG by sitting President Dr Mohamed Waheed after the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

She was later reassigned as Minister of Family, Gender and Human Rights – an appointed which subsequently failed to gain the approval of parliament, before the President Waheed re-appointed her to her former position as AG.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police call for more responsible demonstrations

Police have today requested that supporters of both the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) respect social standards when conducting political demonstrations.

It was explained in a statement released today that police have written to both MDP Chair ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, and PPM leader Maumoon Abdul Gayoom to urge the parties to observe the regulations set out in the Peaceful Protest Act.

“The document went on to state that since these were the days of the O/Level exams for many students, the demonstrations and rallies being held all over Male’ with sound systems on pickups or megaphones were disruptive and that the Maldives Police Service has been receiving complaints about the situation,” read today’s statement.

Concern was also expressed regarding the potential disruption to traffic, pedestrians and local businesses. Police also noted that demonstrations outside of individual’s homes was prohibited.

Local media reported that two MDP supporters were detained on Saturday (October 28) as the two parties conducted protests in close proximity to the residence of the Speaker of the Majlis, MDP MP, Abdulla Shahid.

The Majlis yesterday approved a motion to ensure Shahid will assume the presidency should no president-elect be chosen before the the end of the constitutionally specified presidential term on November 11.

The PPM member of parliament boycotted the vote.

Supporters of the MDP occupied the length of Male’s Majeedhee Magu for two evenings following the delay of the scheduled presidential election on October 19 – actions labelled by the police as irresponsible.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)