Tag: restrictions

Criminal Court suspends staff refusing unpaid overtime

The Criminal Court has suspended a number of staff members after they allegedly refused to work overtime, reports local media.

According to local media reports, last Monday (10 February) staff at the Criminal Court refused to work overtime and left for home after the court informed them they would not be paid for overtime.

Local newspaper Haveeru quoted an employee, saying that they had been told of the suspension today. Media reports have quoted figures of around a dozen staff being involved.

According to the staff, they had previously petitioned the judges at the court over the issue prior to the strike.

The staff member who spoke to Haveeru has said that the decision to suspend the staff was made by the judges, suggesting that this was not an authority the judges had.

He also said that there were judges in the court that do not work overtime, but that no action had been taken against them thus making their own suspension unfair.

Furthermore, the employee revealed that before the allowances for judges working at night was introduced, there were four days on which all the judges of the court other that the chief judge had refused to work at night.

He also noted one instance when the chief judge had handed responsibility for extension of detention hearings to a junior colleague, before going fishing, with the result that there was no one at the court to proceed with these hearings.

Recently, the Criminal Court decided to close down after official work hours due to budget restrictions.

The court at the time told the press that it had no funds to pay overtime allowances for employees, and that the Ministry of Finance had not responded regarding the matter. The Civil Court has taken the same measures owing to lack of funds.

Spokesperson of Judicial Administrations Latheefa Gasim referred Minivan News to the Director of Department of Judicial Administration Ahmed Majidh, who in turn referred Minivan News to a Criminal Court media official.

Criminal Court media official Ahmed Mohamed Manik subsequently said he would not like to comment on the matter.

Producing an extensive report on the state of the Maldivian judiciary last year, UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul raised serious concerns about an impending budget catastrophe facing the judicial system.

“The immediate implications of the budget cuts on the judiciary are appalling. For instance, the Department of Judicial Administration only has funds to pay staff salaries until November 2013 and it had to cancel training this year,” Knaul noted in May 2013.

“The Civil Court reported that it would not have sufficient funds to pay its staff salaries after October 2013; furthermore, existing budgetary resources would not be sufficient to pay for utilities and facilities after June 2013,” read Knaul’s report.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldivian and Indian officials deny reported agreement to address “consular issues”

Additional reporting by Neil Merrett

Indian and Maldivian authorities have both denied media reports that an agreement has been reached on relaxing visa restrictions for Maldivians entering India.

The Indian High Commission in the Maldives today said it has not been made aware of any new agreements with Maldives authorities over amending visa restrictions, despite discussions continuing between the two nations to address “consular concerns”.

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali also stressed that he was unaware of any official agreement being made to address the concerns raised by Indian officials.

Local media reported today that the Maldives had “agreed” to conditions set out by India in order to relax the conditions recently imposed on Maldivian nationals wishing to obtain a visa.

A spokesperson for the High Commission confirmed to Minivan News that discussions were being held with the Maldives Ministry of Foreign Affairs to address respective concerns raised by both nations.

The Indian High Commission maintained that these discussions with Maldivian officials were “not about conditions”, but rather working to address concerns held by both sides.

“We have a long and cordial relationship with the Maldives that is not based on conditions,” a source at the commission said.

State Foreign Minister Hassan Saeed, speaking during parliament’s Government Accountability Committee on Monday (January 28), said cabinet had decided to find a resolution to issues put forward by India.

“[India] had asked to resolve seven issues. Mostly they highlighted the issues faced by the 30,000 Indians in the Maldives,” he said.

“After the discussions at the President’s Office, we are currently trying to solve these issues,” Hassan was quoted as saying in local media.

During the committee meeting, Foreign Minister Abdul Samad Abdulla said Indian government officials had hinted at the relaxation of the present visa restrictions should the Maldives government agree to extradite its Indian prisoners.

“We have received various signals that the visa issue can be resolved if an agreement can be reached over the Indian prisoners in Maldives,” Samad told local media.

“Moreover, when the Indian media reports on the Indian prisoners in our jails, the officials in the Maldives High Commission in India face various pressures.”

Speaking during India’s Republic Day ceremony in Male’ on Friday, Indian High Commissioner Dnyaneshwar M Mulay pointedly conveyed greetings “to those Indian expatriates who are in Maldivian jails”.

Amd rising diplomatic tensions with its neighbour, Maldivian nationals have found themselves queuing outside the Indian High Commission in Male’ to obtain medical and other visas for travel to India.

Consular issues

The Indian High Commission in the Maldives said among the concerns raised with the government were 11 consular issues relating to the treatment of Indian expatriates in the Maldives.

These included discrimination against Indian expatriates, the keeping of passports of Indian nationals by employers and government agencies, and the exploitation of Indian workers.

“Discussions on addressing these matters are ongoing and we do hope to find resolutions from both sides soon,” said a spokesperson for the commission.

Indian authorities late last month said tightened restrictions imposed at the time on providing medical visas to Maldivians were a “signal” for the country’s government to address concerns about the nation’s treatment of migrant workers.

The Maldives has been on the US State Department’s Tier 2 watch list for human trafficking three years in a row, only narrowly avoiding tier 3 in 2011 due to promises by the former government to resolve the matter.

A lapsed police investigation into labour trafficking in the Maldives in July 2011 uncovered an industry worth an estimated US$123 million, eclipsing fishing (US$46 million in 2007) as the second greatest contributor of foreign currency to the Maldivian economy after tourism.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ratification of limits on freedom of assembly won’t affect ‘revolution’: MDP

The ratification of the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Bill is a “direct response” to the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s proposed revolution, the party’s Spokesperson Hamed Abdul Ghafoor has alleged.

Yesterday (January 11) the President’s Office website announced that President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik had approved the controversial bill, which enforces limits for protests in the Maldives.

Parliament passed the bill on December 25, 2012 with 44 votes in favour and 30 against – a decision which attracted criticism from NGOs within the country who warned the bill could “restrict some fundamental rights”.

Ghafoor told Minivan News that the MDP stood against the principles of the Freedom of Assembly Bill, alleging its ratification is a response to the ‘Ingilaab’ proposed by former President Mohamed Nasheed last month.

“We are not happy with this bill, and on principle alone we are against it. The current government feels the need to restrict freedom of expression and unwind the democratic gains of this country,” he alleged.

“The whole intention of this bill was to respond to our popular uprising. But when the time comes [for the revolution] the bill won’t matter. We will still go out onto the streets,” Ghafoor claimed.

Among the key features of the Freedom of Assembly bill is the outlawing of demonstrations outside private residences and government buildings, limitations on media covering protests not accredited with the state and defining “gatherings” as a group of more than a single person.

One of the main stated objectives of the legislation is to try and minimise restrictions on peaceful gatherings, which it claims remain a fundamental right.

Under the legislation, demonstrations will be outlawed within a certain distance of the residences of the president and vice president, tourist resorts, harbours utilized for economic purposes, airports, the President’s Office, the courts of law, the Parliament, mosques, schools, hospitals and buildings housing diplomatic missions.

NGO concerns

In a joint statement from local NGOs Transparency Maldives (TM) and Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) this month (January 2), it warned that the bill posed “serious challenges to the whole democratic system”.

The statement claimed that the bill could restrict the constitutional right to freedom of assembly (article 32), freedom of expression (article 27) and press freedom (article 28).

As article four of the constitution states that “all the powers of the state of the Maldives are derived from, and remains with, the citizens,” both NGOs warned that narrowing the fundamental rights guaranteed by the second chapter of the constitution would “facilitate taking away from the public the powers that remain with them.”

Media “accreditation” on protest coverage

Last month, the Maldives Journalists’ Association (MJA) expressed concern over certain clauses in the ratified Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Bill, claiming that it will directly impact reporting by local and international media organisations.

In regard to the media’s right to cover demonstrations, the bill states that the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC) must draft a regulation on accrediting journalists within three months of the ratification of the bill.

Only those journalists who are accredited by the MBC will be granted access to cover and report on gatherings and police activities in the vicinity.

MJA President and board member of the Maldives Media Council (MMC) ‘Hiriga’ Ahmed Zahir claimed last month (December 29) that the MBC – appointed by parliament – would not be able to accredit media persons in an independent manner free from any influence.

“We are seeing the MBC failing to address many existing issues even now, so we cannot support handing over additional responsibilities like this to such a body,” he added.

Zahir also raised concerns that foreign journalists coming to the Maldives would also be required to obtain additional accreditation. He said that international media was already faced with having to meet specific visa requirements and obtaining state approval.

“For example, [international reporters] cannot really cover events if they are just here on a tourist visa, that won’t be allowed anywhere in the world,” he said.

Speaking on the matter of media accreditation, MDP Spokesman Ghafoor alleged to Minivan News today that it was the current governments “intention” to control the media coverage of protests.

“When the incumbent government took over office, they took over the state media too. We have noticed this trend continuing today,” he claimed.

President’s Office Spokesman Masood Imad was not responding to calls at time of press today.

However back in November last year, Imad previously defended a case submitted to Supreme Court by the Attorney General that claimed causing a public disturbance in the name of political protest is against the constitution.

The case, submitted in September, requests the Supreme Court to rule that such protests are against some articles of the constitution. This includes disturbing the public, using foul language and “protesting in a manner that instills fear into the hearts of children and the elderly”.

Speaking back in November regarding the case, Imad said: “A protest should be about changing something. A protest conducted in residential areas has nothing to do with parliament. Public protest and public nuisance are two very different things.”

The President’s Office Spokesman further stated that the government “fully” supports the right to protest, but added that it should not be conducted in a way that negatively affects the lives of others.

Minivan News attempted to contact MPs and spokespersons from Progressive Party of Maldives, Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party, Dhivehi Qaumee Party, Jumhoree Party, People’s Alliance and Maldivian Development Alliance to speak on the matter, however none were responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)