Tag: prosecutor general

Former Defense Minister denies charges in Hulhumale Magistrate Court

Former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu has denied the charge of arbitrary detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdullah Mohamed, during the first hearing of his criminal trial held in the controversial Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

The Prosecutor General has charged Tholhath for arresting the judge in January 2012, during his tenure as the minister of defense under former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration.

Others facing the same charges include former President Mohamed Nasheed, former Chief of Defense Force retired Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, former Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Male Area Commander retired Brigadier General Mohamed Ibrahim Didi and Colonel Ziyad.

During the first hearing of the trial held on this Monday, State Prosecutor Abdulla Raabiu claimed that following orders from the Commander in Chief – President Mohamed Nasheed – Tholhath had orchestrated the plan to arrest the judge and had arbitrarily detained Judge Abdulla Mohamed from January 16, 2012 until February 7, 2012.

Tholhath should therefore be charged for the offense of arbitrarily detaining an innocent individual as stipulated in article 81 of the Penal Code, Raabiu added.

The article 81 of the Maldives Penal Code states: “It shall be an offense for any public servant by reason of the authority of office he is in to detain to arrest or detain in a manner contrary to Law innocent persons. Person guilty of this offense shall be subjected to exile or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding MVR 2,000.00”.

Denying the charge, the former defense minister claimed that charge pressed against him was “not legitimate”, but did not state his reasons for the claim.

Speaking on behalf of Tholhath Ibrahim, his defense lawyer Mohamed Ibrahim argued that the trial lacked the necessary impartiality, contending that same charges should be pressed against former Home Minister Hassan Afeef and Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh, as they were responsible for maintaining law and order within the state.

Detention of the judge

Minister Afeef at the time of the judge’s arrest accused him of “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist”, listing 14 cases of obstruction of police duty, including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, and barring media from corruption trials, ordering the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes, and releasing a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Afeef also alleged that the judge actively undermined cases against drug trafficking suspects and had allowed them opportunity to “fabricate false evidence after hearings had concluded”.

Judge Abdulla “hijacked the whole court” by deciding that he alone could issue search warrants, Afeef alleged, and had arbitrarily suspended court officers. He also accused the judge of “twisting and interpreting laws so they could not be enforced against certain politicians” and “accepting bribes to release convicts.”

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) itself had investigated Abdulla Mohamed but stopped short of releasing a report into his ethical misconduct, after the Civil Court awarded the judge an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

JSC whistleblower Aishath Velezinee has also contended that the JSC’s blanket reappointment of all interim judges and magistrates in 2010 violated article 285 of the constitution guaranteeing an ethical and qualified judiciary, and that as such, the case “is based on a false premise, the assumption that Abdulla Mohamed is a constitutionally appointed judge, which is a political creation and ignores all evidence refuting this.”

The JSC itself had investigated Abdulla Mohamed but stopped short of releasing a report into his ethical misconduct after the Civil Court awarded the judge an injunction against his further investigation by the judicial watchdog.

Military assisted police

During Tholath’s trial, his lawyer argued that the military did not conduct intensive legal reviews of requests for assistance from the police, and said his client fully believed that the military should act as quickly as it could to assist the police when required.

When the judges sought to clarify as to what part of the charge Tholthath was denying, his lawyer stated that his client had not done anything against the law.

In response to Tholhath Ibrahim’s denial of the charges, the state produced witnesses in support of its claim.

This list of witnesses included current Chief of Defense Force Major General Ahmed Shiyam, former Police Commissioner Ahmed Faseeh, former Vice Chief of Defense Force Farhath Shaheer, former Military Intelligence Chief Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam, former Deputy Commissioner of Police Ismail Atheef, Colonel Wise Waheed and Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) Media Official Colonel Abdul Raheem.

Along with the witnesses, the state also produced as evidence a list of text messages sent from Tholhath Ibrahim’s mobile phone, video footage of the arrest of the judge and a transcript of a cabinet meeting in which the issue was debated.

State prosecutor Raabiu said the state was willing to produce more witnesses and evidences to court if the need arises as the trial progressed.

When the evidence was produced in court, Tholhath lawyer requested the court give a period of one month to review the evidence put forth against his claim.

Dismissing the request, the sitting judges stated that the trial had been put on hold for a long time and that certain documents had already been shared with the defendants, therefore the next hearing would be scheduled for March 13, giving the defendant a period of 23 days.

An investigation led by Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) found the former President Nasheed as the “highest authority liable” for the military-led detention of the Judge. The HRCM also identified Tholhath Ibrahim as a “second key figure” involved in the matter.

In July 2012, Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz pressed charges against the parties who had been identified in the HRCM investigation as responsible for the arrest.

Following the charges, former President Nasheed’s legal team challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court in High Court, but the Supreme Court intervened and dismissed the claims by declaring the magistrate court was legitimate and could operate as a court of law.

The trial was heard by all three judges of Hulhumale Magistrate Court appointed to look into the case. The panel consists of Judge Shujaau Usmaan, Judge Hussain Mazeed and Judge Abdul Nasir Abdul Raheem.

Contentious court

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which is also trying former President Nasheed for his detention of the Chief Criminal Court Judge during his final days in office, was created by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).

The JSC, which includes several of Nasheed’s direct political opponents including rival presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim, also appointed the three-member panel of judges overhearing the trial.

Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee has previously declared that the JSC’s creation of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court declared parliament overruled, issuing a statement that “no institution should meddle with the business of the courts”, and claiming that as it held authority over “constitutional and legal affairs” it would “not allow such interference to take place.”

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

A subsequent request by the JSC that the Supreme Court bench rule on the court’s legitimacy resulted in a four to three vote in favour. The casting vote was made by Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, also President of the JSC.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Some” cases from Hondaidhoo alcohol arrests sent to Prosecutor General

Police this week have completed an investigation into “some” of the 10 people arrested in November 2012 for alleged possession and consumption of alcohol on Hondaidhoo Island in Haa Dhaal Atoll, according to local media.

Upon completion of the investigation Tuesday (January 29), the cases were forwarded to the Prosecutor General’s (PG) office, newspaper Haveeru has reported.

The identities of the accused and the nature of the cases sent to the PG have not been disclosed.  However two Parliament members – Kaashidhoo constituency MP Abdulla Jabir as well as Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) spokesperson and Henveiru South constituency MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor – were among those arrested in November 2012.

In addition to Jabir and Hamid, former opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) President Ibrahim Hussain Zaki and former Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair, his wife Mariyam Faiz, Zaki’s son Hamdhan Zaki, Seenu Hulhudhoo Reefside Jadhulla Jameel, two Sri Lankans and a Bangladeshi were among the ten people arrested from Hondaidhoo.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Case against Customs Director for “conferring undue advantage” sent to PG

The Prosecutor General’s Office (PG) has received a case against Customs Director of Finance and Accounts Ismail Hamdhoon, alleging he used the “influence of his position” to “confer undue advantage to a particular group,” reports local media.

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) released a statement today (January 30) saying that they previously investigated two 2009 incidents.

“Customs had placed an order for the production of MVR 57,000 (US$3,696) worth of shields, without any prior announcement for submission of estimations,” Sun Online reports.

“An order worth more than MVR 25,000 (US$1,621) was placed for the production of a number of awards, which was also done without prior announcement for estimation,” local media added.

The Public Finance Act states that an announcement must be made to “seek parties for estimates” when spending above MVR 25,000 (US$1,621), according to local media.

The customs transactions Hamdhoon is being prosecuted for were carried out with his permission after “the customs tender committee informed employees not to make such transactions without proper announcements,” ACC said to Sun Online.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

No intention to reverse decision to charge 15 year-old with fornication: PG’s office

The Prosecutor General’s (PG) office has “no intention” of reversing the decision to charge a 15 year-old child abuse victim with fornication, local media has reported.

An official from the PG’s office told local newspaper Haveeru that the decision to charge the 15-year-old from Shaviyani Atoll Feydhoo with fornication was made after extensive assessment of the case.

Back in June 2012, the same minor – a school student at the time – gave birth to a baby later discovered buried in the outdoor shower area of a home on Feydhoo.

The discovery led to the arrest of four people, including the 15 year-old girl’s mother and step father.

Haveeru reported that as the charges filed against the girl have no connection with the buried baby case, the PG’s office had no intention to withdraw the charges.

“So far we have no intention of reversing the decision to charge her at the Juvenile Court,” a PG’s official was quoted by local media.

Speaking to Minivan News on January 9 the Prosecutor General (PG’s) Office confirmed it had pressed charges against a 15 year-old girl from the island of Feydhoo in Shaviyani Atoll for having “consensual sexual relations”.

A spokesperson for the PG’s Office said the charges against the minor were unrelated to a separate case against the girl’s stepfather over allegations he had sexually abused her.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PG asks High Court to void dismissal of Deputy Speaker Nazim’s corruption cases

The Prosecutor General (PG’s) Office today requested that the High Court void a previous Criminal Court dismissal of four corruption cases against People’s Alliance (PA) MP and Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim.

Nazim had been cleared by the Criminal Court of all four corruption charges against him on February 23, 2012. The decision was taken 16 days after the controversial transfer of power on February 7, with the court ruling that Nazim’s “acts were not enough to criminalize him.”

All four cases concerned public procurement tenders of the former Atolls Ministry, which were alleged to have been secured through fraudulent documents and paper companies.

The state prosecutor during today’s hearing claimed that the Criminal Court had acted in contradiction to the procedures normally applied in criminal cases.

The prosecutor also alleged that in passing the ruling to dismiss the cases, the Criminal Court had failed to consider any of the evidence provided by the state.

During today’s appeal hearing, the PG’s Office stated that the dismissal of the cases had breached the constitutional decree of equal treatment to all citizens. Concerns were also raised that the Criminal Court had acted against the norms of procedure in similar cases by ruling that two counts of fraud cases against Nazim could not be prosecuted.

Considering these grounds, the state asked the High Court to rule void the Criminal Court’s dismissal of the four cases, and to order the court to rule on the cases anew.

Nazim dismissed the state’s allegations in court today, local media reported. Speaking on his behalf, his lawyer alleged that the state’s appeal case was “based around a lie”.

Nazim’s lawyer responded to the state’s allegation that the Criminal Court had not followed procedures by claiming that the court had presented the state with an opportunity to present their case during hearings.

The defendant’s lawyer also alleged that the witnesses named by the state had not been presented in court as they were not believed to be fair or impartial witnesses.

Last month, Nazim slammed PG Ahmed Muizzu in parliament, stating that he had failed to either come to a decision on or forward to court some 72 percent of cases submitted to his office by the Maldives Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).

The criticisms levelled by Nazim were dismissed at the time by the PG himself, who said that the claims were inaccurate.

PG Ahmed Muizzu and MP Ahmed Nazim were not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Ali Waheed seeks temporary injunction after Criminal Court rejects appeal

Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Waheed has today appealed a Criminal Court decision to reject procedural points raised during previous hearings of a case against him.

Lawyers representing the Thoddoo constituency MP argued during a High Court appeal hearing today that charges against him for obstructing police officers in their duty had previously been dismissed and, as a procedural point, could not therefore be legally resubmitted.

Ali Waheed is charged with obstruction of police duty during an anti-government protest he participated in while of member of the then opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).  Waheed, who defected to then-ruling MDP in May 2011, was charged for breaching article 75 of Maldives Police Services Act.

Appeal

During today’s High Court appeal hearing, Waheed’s lawyer, former Attorney General Husnu al Suood, repeated his argument that the state could not resubmit the same criminal charges for a second time without any changes.

He contended that the decision of the prosecutor general (PG) to pursue the case contradicted article 223 of the constitution, which prescribes the powers of his office.

Responding to the argument, Assistant Public Prosecutor Hussain Nashid claimed that the charges had only been dropped “temporarily” in a bid to respect the “fairness” of criminal trials.

Nashid also argued that the prosecutor general had the discretionary power to decide on the procedures as to how criminal charges can be filed.

Meanwhile, Ali Waheed’s lawyer requested the High Court bench issue a temporary injunction to withhold the ongoing case at Criminal Court until the High Court decides on the matter.

In response to the request, chair of the sitting judges bench Judge Yoosuf Hussain said that the court would decide on whether to issue the requested injunction by the end of the day.

Discretion

Speaking to Minivan News today, prominent criminal lawyer Abdulla Haseen said he believed that the prosecutor general legally had the power to resubmit criminal cases after withdrawing them.  However, Haseen contended that any such decision should be “fair and just, without any political influences”.

“I do not believe that the constitution limits the power of PG to resubmit criminal cases again. But it should be done in a fair and just way without any political influences,” he said

Even though Haseen declined to comment on the ongoing court case, he stressed that the PG should ensure cases being sent to trial were done so in a way that was fair and just, especially when focusing on political figures.  Haseen stressed such a decision was vital in order to maintain the credibility and impartiality of prosecutions.

“We don’t usually see the PG resubmitting cases like this but it does not mean he cannot. However exercise of his discretion should always be impartial. When Ali Waheed’s case was withdrawn, it reflected political motives as much as it did when he decided to resubmit the case. PG is an independent constitutional body and should not be subject to political influence,” he explained.

The Prosecutor General’s Office was not responding to calls at time of press.

Case history

The case was first sent to the PG’s Office after an investigation by the police in March 2010.

By November that year, state prosecutors had dropped the charges against Ali Waheed on the grounds of a “lack of fairness”, stating that police had failed to submit a case relating to MDP activists entering the Civil Services Commission (CSC) office and harassing its staff.

The case against Ali Waheed was once filed again by the PG last year following the controversial transfer of power that brought President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik’s government into office.

Following the decision, Ali Waheed’s defence lawyer Suood argued during a Criminal Court hearing that the state cannot file the same criminal charges once they had been dropped on an earlier occasion.

Ali Waheed’s procedural points were dismissed by the sitting criminal court judge Abdulla Didi, stating that the PG could re-file a case.

During previous Criminal Court hearings, Waheed stated that he was unclear about the charges pressed against him. He added that he was not someone who would ever confront police with arms and questioned whether it was only him and Mahloof that were there during the protests.

State prosecutors responded that they had decided to prosecute Ali Waheed and fellow MP Ahmed Mahloof because they had been able to obtain sufficient evidence to support charges against the two politicians.

Along with MP Ali Waheed, former DRP MP Ahmed Mahloof is also facing the same charges.

Both Waheed and Mahloof were elected to parliament under the ticket of DRP. However, following the split of the DRP into two factions, both Waheed and Mahloof chose to leave their former party and head in two different directions.

Mahloof joined the newly formed Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), the party formed by the DRP members who supported former President Gayoom as opposed to the party’s current leader, MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali. Ali Waheed meanwhile joined the MDP.

During the first hearing of the trail against him, Mahloof requested that the judge carry out the trial separately stating that although he and Waheed were once in the same party, times had changed and the pair now followed different political beliefs and parties.

The request was dismissed at the time by the presiding Judge Abdulla Didi, who stated that the state had levied one charge against both him and his parliamentary colleague. Judge Didi said differing political beliefs was immaterial to the case that was being heard.

Concerns

Following the filing of the case against Waheed for the second time, the MDP at the time raised concerns stating that the case had lost its meaning because of the delay in prosecution.

In a statement, the MDP claimed that “without considering the legal principle ‘justice delayed is justice denied’,  we would like to bring to notice that the state is prosecuting meaningless cases while more important cases remain unprosecuted, while others have already been dismissed,” read the statement.

It further described the prosecution of its members at the time as a “series of attempts to hurt” the party after the fall of the previous MDP-led government.  The MDP contends that former President Mohamed Nasheed was removed from office under “duress” following a mutiny by sections of the police and military on February 7, 2012.

Waheed, previously speaking to local media after the hearing, stated that he would not be threatened by such cases that the current government was pressing against him, and said he would “face the charges with courage”. He also asked the PG to prosecute him for even “slightest” wrong he had committed.

“This prosecution is not just a prosecution levied against me, this is a prosecution that is levied against the 50,000 members of MDP and the majority of the citizens of Thoddu constituency,” he said.

Ali Waheed told the press at the time that such unpleasant inducements by the government to pressure him to join them would not work and claimed that he would not leave the MDP to support an illegitimate government.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Deputy Speaker Nazim slams prosecutor general over work rate on corruption cases

Deputy Speaker and People’s Alliance (PA) MP Ahmed Nazim has claimed Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizzu had failed to either come to a decision on or forward to court some 72 percent of cases submitted to his office by the Maldives’ Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).

The criticisms levelled by Nazim, who was cleared earlier this year of several corruption charges, were dismissed by PG Muizzu as being inaccurate.

Nazim’s criticisms were raised today during a parliamentary debate on the Anti-Corruption Bill submitted by independent MP Mohamed Nasheed.

“We are seeing that regardless of how much we empower the ACC, the cases they complete through investigation often are blocked from reaching the courts,” Nazim stated, while also pointing out the importance of further empowering the ACC.  “As found recently by the Public Finance Committee, 72 percent of the cases submitted to the PG Office by ACC in the past three years remain unattended on the PG’s desk. The PG has neither submitted these to the courts, nor shared his decisions on them.”

Nazim also criticised the appointment of people allegedly involved in ongoing corruption cases to senior government posts.

“Because the cases [in which these individuals are allegedly involved] are not getting prosecuted, they are getting more opportunities to continue with their corrupt actions. I therefore think it is important for us to amend the PG Act once we pass this current bill. We need to define a duration within which the PG must decide on cases submitted to his office. If we want to eradicate corruption, we cannot allow the PG to keep cases untouched on his desk in this manner,” Nazim said, criticizing Muizzu’s performance in office.

“Unless the corrupt are tried in courts and given due penalties, they will not be reluctant to continue with their acts of corruption.”

“Honourables in parliament will know most about corruption”: MP Mohamed Rasheed

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Rasheed criticized fellow elected officials, stating that the “Honourables in parliament will know most about corruption”, going on to detail some of the corruption allegations that have been raised against individual MPs during the 17th People’s Majlis.

Rasheed also raised a procedural point while Nazim was speaking, saying he was very happy that “the most corrupt man in the Maldives is talking about the anti-corruption bill.”

The procedural point was overruled by Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid.

Rasheed further criticized Nazim, saying: “He is the man who raised the pay of all the judges, gave them above a MVR 100,000. How can we stop corruption when the chair of the Public Finance Committee has thrown all our judges into corruption?  Some people who are infamous in the line of corruption are part of this 17th People’s Majlis as ‘honourables’, and this has broadened the chances of corruption.”

MP Ahmed Nazim had four cases of corruption against him, all of which concerned public procurement tenders of the former Atolls Ministry secured through fraudulent documents and paper companies. By February 23rd, the Criminal Court cleared Nazim from all corruption charges, stating at the time that evidence submitted to prove the allegations against him was “not enough to criminalise.”

Meanwhile, ACC Vice President Muaviz Rasheed today stated that issue of cases being delayed at the PG Office was a standing issue, adding that the commission had not calculated any specific percentages regarding workload.

“There are some major corruption cases that are getting delayed, including the border control case and the Disaster Management Centre case,” Rasheed said.

“Perhaps it is just a matter of lack of resources. Probably all the institutions are just facing similar setbacks,” Rasheed added.

Meanwhile, Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizzu told Minivan News that he did not believe that the percentage rate of the number of cases sent in by the ACC left unattended by his office was as significant as 72 percent.

“The majority of the cases sent to the PG’s Office comes from the police. Less than one percent of this amount is sent by the ACC, the Police Integrity Commission, Customs or other institutions. By December 20, we have closed 75 percent of all the cases that have been submitted here, meaning we have either rejected or sent them to court.”

“Of course, there might be some cases submitted by the ACC among the pending cases, but I don’t believe it would amount to as much as 72 percent,” Muizzu said.

Muizzu added that sometimes “different aspects of the investigation” were submitted to the PG’s office for review.  He said that in such instances, his office would neither formally reject or close the cases.

“We do not lag behind compared to other institutions dealing with criminal justice,” Muizzu said.

MP Ahmed Nazim was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court overrules Parliament’s decision to invalidate Hulhumale Magistrate Court

The Supreme Court has issued an order invalidating the decision of Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee to not recognise the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed is currently facing charges in the Hulhumale Court for the detention of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed during the final days of his administration.

The oversight committee this week declared the court illegitimate, claiming it lacked “constitutional and legal grounds” to support its legitimacy.

In an order, (No. 2012/SC-SJ/05) issued on November 28, the Supreme Court declared that no institution should meddle with the business of the courts, claiming that it held parental authority over “constitutional and legal affairs” and would not allow such “interference” to take place.

“Any action or a decision taken by an institution of the state that may impact the outcome of a matter that is being heard in a court of law, and prior to a decision by the courts on that matter, shall be deemed invalid, and [the Supreme Court] hereby orders that these acts must not be carried out,” the order read.

Though the order did not specifically mention the decision by the parliamentary oversight committee, it was issued shortly after the committee’s decision regarding the Hulhumale’ court.

Last Tuesday, the Independent Institutions Oversight Committee,following an issue presented by three sitting MPs, declared there were no “legal grounds” to accept the setting up and functioning of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court based on the powers vested to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) under article 159 of the constitution and article 21 of the Judicial Service Commission Act, and based on the articles 53 and 63 of Judicature Act.

The members of the committee claimed there was a lack of any legal reasoning to recommence the works of the concerned court after its work had been suspended for five months after the Judicature Act came to force.

Article 63 of the Judicature Act states: “A Magistrate Court shall be established in all inhabited islands with the exception of Male’ where there are the four superior courts created in accordance with Article 53(b) of this Act and in an island where 4 divisions of these four superior courts are established in accordance with Article 53 (c) of this Act.”

However, the Independent Institutions Oversight Committee in its explanation of the decision stated that the exception of Male’ in the stated article included Hulhumale’, which for administrative purposes is considered a ward of the capital.  The committee argued Hulhumale’ could not be deemed as a separate island to establish a magistrate court.

No one should meddle with the courts: Supreme Court

In quashing the parliamentary committee’s decision, the Supreme Court stated that while the Maldivian constitutional system broadly entertained the principle of separation of powers, no one power of the state can go beyond the limits set out in the constitution.

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

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

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

Not meddling with business of courts – Deputy Chair of Independent Institutions Oversight Committee

Speaking to Minivan News, Deputy Chair of Independent Institutions Oversight Committee MP Ahmed Sameer said the committee was not meddling with the business of the courts, but addressing a constitutional violation carried out by the JSC in establishing an illegitimate court.

Sameer – who is also the deputy leader of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) parliamentary group – stated that it was a responsibility of the parliament to hold independent institutions and other bodies of the state accountable, and that his committee was mandated with the scrutiny of actions of independent institutions.

“Initially, when we summoned the JSC to the committee, they refused to talk to us or provide any information to the committee. However, from the documents that the committee received later, we found out that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was formed by the JSC which is a violation of the constitution and the laws,” he said.

Sameer argued that the constitution explicitly states that courts can only be formed by legislation and not “through a vote in the JSC”.

“The committee’s decision was made based on the findings of the inquiry. We have all the documents including the agendas of the meeting and the meeting minutes. It is clear that the JSC had formed and an act that is beyond the powers vested to the commission in the constitution and the JSC Act,” he added.

Sameer claimed that the decision by the committee was binding and no authority can overrule the decision.

“With the committee’s decision, we do not plan to give the budget to the court and works are underway to in drafting an amendment that would specifically state the courts that would be formed under the law,” he said.

Sameer added that the parliament will not tolerate any decision that undermines its constitutional powers and responsibilities.

Arrest of Judge Abdulla

The issue concerning Hulhumale Magistrate Court’s legitimacy came to limelight following the Prosecutor General (PG) filing criminal charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed for the detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January  2012.

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was arrested by the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) on the evening of Monday, January 16, in compliance with a police request.

The judge’s whereabouts were not revealed until January 18, and the MNDF acknowledged receipt but did not reply to Supreme Court orders to release the judge.

Then Home Minister Hassan Afeef subsequently accused the judge of “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist”, listing 14 cases of obstruction of police duty including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, barring media from corruption trials, ordering the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, and maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes.

The judge also released a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Nasheed’s government subsequently requested assistance from the international community to reform the judiciary. Observing that judicial reform “really should come from the JSC”, Foreign Minister at the time, Ahmed Naseemm said that the JSC’s shortcomings “are now an issue of national security.”

The judicial crisis triggered 22 days of continuous protests led by senior opposition figures and those loyal to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom, which eventually led to the controversial toppling of Nasheed’s administration on February 7.

The PG’s Office filed charges based on the investigations by Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) on the arrest, which concluded that Nasheed was the “highest authority liable” for the military-led detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Along with Nasheed, the report concluded that the former president’s Defence Minister, Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, was a second key figure responsible with others including Chief of Defence Force Moosa Ali Jaleel, Brigadier Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad.

Charges were also filed against all of those which the HRCM investigation report identified as responsible for the arrest in Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Hulhumale Magistrate Court and legitimacy

During the first hearing of the trial, ex-president Nasheed’s lawyers took procedural points challenging the legitimacy of the court, but were rejected without justification. Nasheed’s legal team’s appeal challenging the legitimacy was initially rejected by the High Court claiming that it cannot look into a matter that was already being heard in Supreme Court.

However, the High Court later granted Nasheed an injunction temporarily suspending the trial of the former president at the contested Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.  The injunction is pending a ruling on procedural points raised by the former President’s legal team.

Following the injunction, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has announced that it had suspended all ongoing cases.

In its announcement, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it has suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

Following the High Court’s injunction granted to Nasheed, the JSC filed a case in Supreme Court asking it to look into the legitimacy of the court. The Supreme Court then instructed the High Court to halt its hearings on the appeal.

Supreme Court had previously ordered the Civil Court to send over all files and documents on a case submitted by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, over a year ago challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court on November 19, held the first hearing of the case concerning the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and Ismail Visham was decided as the respondent of the case.

Nasheed’s legal team also intervened in the court case. Nasheed’s lawyers stated that the case involved the interests of the former president as his case regarding the detention of the Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed is heard by Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Meanwhile, several prominent figures have raised doubts over the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Former Chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee of the Special Majlis, Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail, in an article in his personal blog stated – “The [Hulhumale’ court] was created by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) without authority derived from law. Therefore the validity of any order or judgement issued by this court is questionable, and the constitution says no one has to obey any unlawful orders, i.e, orders which are not derived from law. Therefore, President Nasheed’s decision to ignore the summons has more than reasonable legal grounds.”

Ismail further writes that no court has the power, under any law, to issue a travel ban on a person without ever summoning them to court.

He also stated that there was ample to room to believe that the courts were acting with a bias against Nasheed, owing to a number of other politicians and business tycoons who were repeatedly defying court orders and summons.

Prominent lawyer and Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed – who is also the chair of Parliament’s Independent Oversight Committee – in his personal blog also echoed similar remarks explaining that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

However following the Supreme Court’s order, Nasheed told Minivan News said that he “wished to give a considered view soon” but refused to reveal a specific date by which he would respond.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court concludes hearings of state’s appeal case over MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor’s arrest

High Court has concluded hearings of the appeal filed by the state following the release of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor by Kulhudhuffushi Magistrate Court.

MP Ghafoor was arrested along with Jumhoree Party (JP) MP Abdulla Jabir and several senior opposition figures on the uninhabited island of Hodaidhoo on November 16, for alleged possession of drugs and alcohol. Police in a statement released following the arrests claimed that 10 people were arrested during a ‘special operation’ on the island.

Police claimed they found large amounts of “suspected” drugs and alcohol during the raid and stated that the arrests were made “based on information received by police intelligence”. Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef earlier told Haveeru that the suspects were arrested with alcohol and “hash oil”.

State requests order to re-arrest MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor

During Sunday’s appeal, the state prosecutors requested an order to re-arrest the MDP MP and invalidate article 202(d) of the Parliament Regulation that bars the police from arresting an MP ahead of a no-confidence motion in parliament.

The state prosecutors argued that Ghafoor should be kept under police custody or else he may “influence” the witnesses that the state wished to present to the court. They also claimed that some of those 21 people arrested might also have evidence.

State prosecutors said that police had informed them that Ghafoor possessed an ‘intoxicant’ when he was arrested but had refused to provide urine to police to conform whether he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

However, Ghafoor’s lawyer Hisaan Hussain said her client denied the charges levied by the state.

She also contended that Ghafoor did not possess the capacity to influence the witnesses by the state arguing that the only witnesses the state had produced were the police officers who made the arrests.

She also claimed that according to an earlier rule established by the Supreme Court, an institution cannot in their own capacity decide to not to adhere to a section of a law or a regulation on the grounds that it contrasted with the constitution, unless a court of law ruled such a section invalid.

She therefore challenged that police could not decide for themselves that the article 202(d) of the Parliament Regulation was invalid, and that thereby the arrest of MP Ghafoor was unlawful.

During the hearing, the judges posed several questions to the state prosecutor, Aishath Hana.

In one such question, the panel of judges questioned whether the court could decide on the validity of the article 202(d) of the Parliamentary Regulation, in an appeal that concerned extension of a detention.

Responding to the question, the state prosecutor said that the request to invalidate the article of parliamentary regulations was made because Kulhudhuffushi Magistrate Court had also referred to the same article in releasing the detainees.

Chair of the judges panel, Judge Abdul Ghanee Mohamed, responded stating that the court will consider Kulhudhuffushi Magistrate Court’s decision to refer to the concerned article when issuing the verdict.

However the court rejected the state’s request to invalidate the concerned article stating that the request was filed in contrast to the established procedures of the court.

The panel of judges also inquired about the progress of the investigation of Ghafoor’s case, to which the police who had been present in the hearings said that statements from all the officers involved in the arrests had been taken.

Police during the hearing also stated that while Hodaidhoo was an uninhabited island, it was questionable as to whether alcohol had been found on the island.

The court concluded the hearings and stated that a date would be announced later on which it would decide on the case.

“Attempt to frame” – MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor

Speaking to Minivan News, Ghafoor claimed the case was an attempt by the government to “frame” opposition politicians for attempting to impeach the President.

“I am a parliament member who is working to bring an end to this government through legitimate means. Now they want to frame me for possession of drugs and sentence me so that I would not be able to do that,” he said.

Ghafoor described the current developments as a “desperate” attempt by the government to unseat MPs opposed to the current government.

“After the coup, we have been working on ways to defeat this coup government through the parliament. Now we see even political parties that initially opposed us starting to support us. They  have started to work with us as well. This is what this government fears most,” he explained.

Ghafoor claimed that the government had been monitoring each and every move of their political opponents including himself, and alleged that their phone calls are “continuously recorded”. This, he added, was what led the police to arrest them on the island of Hodaidhoo, where they had gone to “discuss our concerns about the government”.

“I don’t see it any other way. This is clearly a politically motivated case,” he contended.

Meanwhile, the MDP also claimed the arrests wer politically-motivated and stated that it was an attempt to disrupt parliament ahead of a no confidence motion against President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, and an amendment to voting procedure to make such votes secret.

Last week an amendment to voting procedure to make such votes secret initiated by the opposition MDP MP Ahmed Shifaz was defeated in the parliament floor by 34 to 39 votes. However, MDP MP Ibrahim ‘Bondey’ Rasheed has again re-submitted the amendment to Parliament’s Privileges Committee.

“It is such a coincidence that whenever the Waheed government wants to frame those critical of their government, they come up with trumped up charges and very often it is something to do with alcohol,” said former MDP Chairperson Mariya Ahmed Didi, in a statement.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)