Tag: suo moto

Supreme Court case against HRCM undermining commission’s mandate, says MDP

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has voiced concern over the Supreme Court suo moto case against members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) regarding a report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council last week.

In a press statement released today, the opposition party said that the members of the commission were summoned to the Supreme Court because of their criticism of the judiciary the submission to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

“The party believes that by initiating a suo moto, the Supreme Court is undermining the responsibilities vested by the Maldivian Constitution and international conventions on the independent commission,” read the MDP’s press statement.

Speaking to Minivan News today, parliamentary leader of the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Ahmed Nihan, said that it is not the place of any member of the government or an independent body to criticise the Supreme Court.

Nihan noted that the commission was fulfilling its mandate by publishing the report but also said  the Supreme Court was carrying out its own duties by upholding the constitution.

Members of the commission were summoned one by one to the Supreme Court yesterday (September 22) and informed of the suo moto initiated by the Supreme Court.

The HRCM report criticised the growing power of the court, suggesting that control of the judiciary by the Supreme Court was damaging the lower courts.

HRCM members said yesterday that they were faced with numerous charges although they had been advised by their lawyer not to give further details. The members are scheduled to be present at a hearing tomorrow morning (September 24).

Article 27 of the HRCM act grants immunity from prosecution in relation to acts carried out as part of the commission’s duty unless a formal inquiry proves that some components in the report are proven to be false.

Earlier this year, Supreme Court used the unprecedented suo moto proceeding, in which the court acts as its own plaintiff and judge, in the removal of Elections Commission (EC) President Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz.

Both were charged with contempt of court and disobedience to order as a result of testimony given to the People’s Majlis’ independent commission’s oversight committee

Through a raft of regulations enacted in recent months, the Maldives Supreme Court has sought to consolidate control over administrative affairs of the judiciary.

Changes to contempt of court regulations made in June authorised courts to initiate legal proceedings and punish individuals for any expression, action, gesture, or piece of writing “inside or outside a courtroom” that could be considered contempt of court.

The court has come under criticism both home and abroad in recent months, with a sex-tape scandal and perceived interference in the 2013 presidential elections among the issues causing controversy.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court initiates suo moto proceedings against Human Rights Commission

The Supreme Court has initiated suo moto proceedings again the Human Rights Commission of Maldives in relation to a report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) last week.

All five commission members were called to the court this afternoon before being handed a summons for a hearing on Wednesday (September 24).

HRCM members have told Minivan News today that they face numerous charges, though lawyers have advised them not to give further details at this point.

The commission’s report – submitted as part of the UN Universal Periodic Review – criticised the court’s growing powers, suggesting that control of the judiciary by the Supreme Court was damaging the lower courts.

“[D]ue to shortfalls in judicial system, functioning of the judiciary is often questionable on various grounds including independence, transparency, interference, influence, competency, consistency, and accessibility,” read the report.

The Supreme Court’s use of suo moto proceedings – which allow the court to initiate hearings and act as both plaintiff and judge – mirrors proceedings use against the Elections Commission (EC) earlier this year.

EC President Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz were charged with contempt of court and disobedience to order as a result of testimony given in the People’s Majlis independent commissions oversight committee.

The unprecedented suo moto procedures were used to remove both Thowfeek and Fayaz from their posts just weeks before the Majlis elections in March, with both given 6 month suspended sentences.

Subsequent changes to contempt of court regulations made in June authorised courts to initiate legal proceedings and punish individuals for any expression, action, gesture, or piece of writing “inside or outside a courtroom” that could be considered contempt of court.

United Nations

The 2006 Human Right Commission Act lists the promotion and protection of human rights in accordance with international conventions along with the assistance and support of relevant NGOs as basic objectives of the commission.

Additionally, Article 27 of the HRCM Act grant members immunity from prosecution in relation to acts carried out as part of the commission’s duties.

Article 27 (b) meanwhile says that a case can only be filed against the commission regarding published reports following an inquiry which proves components of the report to have been false.

UN bodies have been amongst those most critical of the Maldivian justice system in recent months, with a report into the judiciary by a UN Special Rapporteur last year making particular note of the centralised administration and the failure to address human rights violations.

The report was subsequently described by the Maldives representative to the UNHRC as undermining the sovereignty of the country.

Criticism of the Supreme Court’s role in the electoral process by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay last October was subsequently described as “ill-informed” and “irresponsible” by former President Dr Mohamed Waheed.

Waheed is amongst the delegates representing the Maldives at the 69th session of the UN General Assembly, along with Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon.

Earlier this week, on the occasion of the Maldives’ 49th year of UN membership, Dunya praised the organisation as “the only forum where every nation in the world, big or small, has an equal say”.

The UNHCR’s periodic review studies the human rights records of all 193 UN member states, aiming to prompt, support, and expand the protection of human rights. After having been reviewed first in 2010, the Maldives will again undergo inspection in 2015.

Speaking to Minivan News last week after receiving her summons for today’s hearing, HRCM member Jeehan Mahmood defended the UPR report.

“It’s the one chance we get to bring the world’s attention to issues that the state chooses to ignore on domestic forums”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court enacts new contempt of court regulations

The Supreme Court has enacted new regulations authorising courts to initiate legal proceedings and punish individuals for any expression, action, gesture, or piece of writing “inside or outside a courtroom” that could be considered contempt of court.

The contempt of court regulations (Dhivehi) promulgated on July 24 states that its purpose is “establishing justice, removing obstacles to trials, and upholding the honour and dignity of courts.”

“Contempt of court is a crime. And holding courts and its judges in contempt, and committing any act that could diminish the honour and dignity of courts is against Article 141(c) and (d) of the Constitution,” states section three of the regulations.

Spoken or written words as well as deeds and gestures that constitute contempt of court include portraying the judiciary in a negative light, an utterance or action that demeans a court, a judge, or court officer, “criticising or berating a court or a judge, or committing any act that causes loss of respect and dignity of a court or a judge, or attempting to bring the court into disrepute.”

Other actions include obstruction of ongoing trials, non-compliance with court orders or verdicts, refusal to provide testimony at a trial, refusal to answer summons to appear at court or flying overseas without permission, and use of obscene language inside a courtroom.

Additionally, causing physical harm to a judge or a court officer, damaging court property, bringing cameras or recording devices into courtrooms without permission, leaving a courtroom during ongoing proceedings, causing disorder at a trial, and using a public forum or the media to unduly influence an ongoing trial would also be considered contempt of court.

Initiating proceedings

While judges could immediately take punitive measures for contempt of court either during trials or within court premises, the regulations stipulate that the state must press charges and initiate criminal prosecution for words or deeds constituting contempt of court outside a courtroom.

However, the Supreme Court, High Court, and lower courts could initiate proceedings if either is the target of the contemptuous remark or action.

The apex court meanwhile has the discretion to initiate proceedings in cases involving contempt towards any court or judge.

If an institution exhibits contempt of court, the regulation states that its most senior official must bear responsibility and face charges.

The accused party in contempt of court trials would have the right to seek legal representation and defend themselves verbally or in writing. An odd number of judges must preside over such trials.

The accused could avail themselves of legal defence arguments used in criminal trials while evidence presented at such trials “with good will or intention to assist in the dispensation of justice” would not be considered contempt of court.

While providing information to the public regarding ongoing trials “truthfully and impartially” is permissible, the regulation states that courts could prohibit dissemination of information at its choosing.

Punishment

Persons found guilty of contempt of court during proceedings at a hearing or trial could be sentenced to up to 15 days in jail, placed under house arrest for up to one month, or fined up to MVR10,000 (US$649).

For other cases of contempt of court during proceedings or inside court premises, the regulations state that persons could be sentenced pursuant to Articles 85 through 88 of the penal code.

However, section 13 – which deals with punishment – does not specify the punishment for instances of contempt of court outside the courtroom

Moreover, sentences passed during proceedings or following a contempt of court trial cannot be appealed at a higher court. However, the Supreme Court has the authority to take measures or issue orders while a contempt of court trial is ongoing at a lower court.

‘Sumoto’

On March 9, less than two weeks before the parliamentary elections, the Supreme Court stripped former Elections Commission (EC) Chair Fuwad Thowfeek and Deputy Chair Ahmed Fayaz of their membership in the independent commission over contempt of court charges.

The Supreme Court had summoned EC members on February 27 and began a surprise trial on charges of contempt of court under new ‘sumoto’ regulations – promulgated in February – that allow the apex court to initiate proceedings and act as both prosecution and judge.

Meanwhile, in January, the Supreme Court suspended former Attorney General Husnu Suood and ordered police to investigate the lawyer for alleged contempt of court. The Prosecutor General’s Office, however, dropped the charges in March.

The former AG had represented the EC in an election annulment case before being ejected and barred from proceedings.

Moreover, the court also sought criminal charges against opposition-aligned private broadcaster Raajje TV over a report criticising the judiciary while Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain threatened legal action against media organisations or journalists who disseminate false or inauthentic information concerning the judiciary.

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party MPs Alhan Fahmy and Imthiyaz Fahmy were meanwhile charged with contempt of court for criticising the apex court on Raajje TV.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)