Tag: Supreme Court bench reduction

MDP appeals committee backs decision to expel MP Moosa

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party’s (MDP) appeals committee has ruled in favour of the party’s decision to expel Majlis Deputy Speaker and Hulhu Henveiru MP Reeko Moosa Manik.

Although Moosa has described the disciplinary committee’s decision as “discriminatory”, the appeals committee found no evidence that any other MPs had defied the party whip more than once, claiming that Moosa had done so on five occasions.

The party’s decision to expel Moosa was prompted by his failure to attend the Majlis for the vote to remove two Supreme Court judges last month. Five other MDP members who failed to follow the party’s instructions to vote against the removal were asked only to issue a public apology.

The appeal committee’s report’s noted that Moosa had violated the parliamentary group’s three-line whip on four other votes in December, listing them as: voting to consider and then to accept amendments to the Judicature Act, voting to pass the 2015 state budget, and voting to amend the Import Export Act.

Moosa admitted to all but one of the charges investigated by the committee. He denied having received the whip notice for the Import Export Act vote.

Moreover, the report stated that harsher penalties in accordance with the frequency of the offences cannot be considered discriminatory or unfair and that Moosa had admitted to intentionally violating the three-line whip regarding the removal of Chief of Justice Ahmed Faiz and Supreme Court Justice Muthasim Adnan in his appeal letter to party Chairperson Ali Waheed.

The five-member appeals committee – comprising Fareesha Abdulla, Mohamed Mahir Easa, Hassan Zahir, Nazil Afeef, and Hassan Latheef – unanimously agreed there was no basis to bring any changes to the decision taken by the disciplinary committee with regards to Moosa.

Moosa was dismissed on December 22 after the MDP National Council had asked the party’s disciplinary committee to take stern action against MPs who violated the three-line whip in the vote in the controversial Supreme Court judges vote.

The Majlis decision has been deemed unconstitutional by multiple local and international groups including the Maldives’ own Civil Court.

According to the decision by the disciplinary committee if Moosa wishes to rejoin the party, he is required to issue a public apology and obtain 50 new members for the party, but he will be barred from standing for any leadership position or contesting in party primaries for five years.

Moosa’s response

Responding to the appeals committee, Moosa said that the decision to expel him and to bar him from contesting in the MDP’s internal elections is in contradiction of articles 26 (b), 90 (a) and 109 (a) of the Constitution.

Article 90 states that “No member or other person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court, and no person shall be subject to any inquiry, arrest, detention or prosecution, with respect to anything said in, produced before, or submitted to the People’s Majlis or any of its committees, or with respect to any vote given if the same is not contrary to any tenet of Islam”.

Article 26 defines the rights to vote and contest in elections, and Article 109 defines the requirements of an individual intending to run for the presidency.

Moosa reiterated his belief that the real reason for his dismissal from the party was his announcement that he intented to contest the MDP’s presidential primaries in 2018.

Also former chairperson and parliamentary group leader, Moosa has previously stated that he does not trust the party’s appeal process, but that he would not contemplate taking the party through the courts.

Reeko stated that he would proceed with the matter further after a decision by the Elections Commission, with which he has also lodged a complaint.

When asked previously why he chose to appeal the disciplinary committee’s decision through the MDP’s internal mechanisms despite having stated that he does not trust the party’s appeal process, Moosa asked: “What else is there to do? I would never take MDP to court, I would never do that”.


Related to this story

MDP expels MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik

Reeko Moosa appeals to MDP disciplinary committee after dismissal

Reeko Moosa condemns MDP expulsion as a move to bar his 2018 presidential candidacy

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Amendments to Judicature Act submitted on request of President Nasheed, says Reeko Moosa

Deputy Speaker of Parliament MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik has alleged that amendments to the Judicature Act, which facilitated the removal of two Supreme Court judges, were submitted on the request of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

“[MDP MP Ibrahim ‘Mavota’] Shareef told me personally that the amendments to the Judicature Act were submitted on the request of President Nasheed,” explained the Hulhuhenveiru MP.

Moosa also alleged that neither the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) nor President Nasheed had formally asked MP Shareef to withdraw his amendments.

The former MDP chair was speaking to Minivan News regarding his appeal against the party’s decision to dismiss him for repeatedly breaching the three-line whip – twice during the removal of the judges.

President Nasheed has denied Moosa’s allegations, telling Minivan News: “I did not ask Shareef to submit any bill”.

Moosa suggested that Nasheed – currently the party’s president – was aware he would violate the whip if a situation arose in which Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz was to be defended, therefore initiating a process which would eventually result in the MP’s dismissal.

He has explained his position, arguing that the dismissed chief justice had done great harm to the party, not least when swearing in Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed without question following Nasheed’s controversial resignation of the presidency in February 2012.

During Faiz’s tenure, the Supreme Court bench had stripped three MDP MPs of their membership and annulled the first round of presidential elections held in September 2013, Moosa has previously explained.

The removal of Faiz and Muthasim Adnan was condemned as unconstitutional by numerous local and international organisations, who have said the move compromises the independence of the judiciary.

Moosa reiterated his belief that the real reason for his dismissal from the party was that he had announced his intention to contest the MDP presidential primaries of 2018.

“I attended a meeting with Shareef at President Nasheed’s office to discuss about the amendments (to the Judicature Act). Nasheed did not request Shareef withdraw it.”

When contacted by Minivan News today, Shareef – who submitted the amendments to the Judicature Act in November – refused to confirm Moosa’s claims, saying that he did not wish to comment on the matter for the time being.

The MDP’s national executive council rejected Shareef’s amendments which were subsequently approved with the support of government-aligned parties in the Majlis. Shareef himself eventually voted against both the amendment and the judges’ removal.

Moosa has also questioned the legitimacy of his dismissal from MDP, noting that current party Chairperson Ali Waheed had not officially informed the Majlis

“If my dismissal is serious and legitimate why has it not been done? This also points to the fact that there is something not right about this whole disciplinary committee business”.

Disciplinary Committee decision

The MDP’s disciplinary committee expelled Moosa on December 22, stating that he would be required to issue a public apology and obtain 50 new members for the party should he wish to rejoin.

The committee has, however, barred Moosa from standing for any leadership position or contesting in party primaries for five years.

When asked why he chose to appeal the disciplinary committee’s decision through the MDP’s internal mechanisms despite having stated that he does not trust the party’s appeal process, Moosa asked: “What else is there to do? I would never take MDP to court, I would never do that”.

Moosa has also lodged a complaint with the Elections Commission (EC), which confirmed it has received the case.

Additionally, Moosa said he did not believe that a five-member disciplinary committee could expel him, noting that the dismissal of former MDP President Dr Ibrahim Didi and Vice president Alhan Fahmy was deliberated upon by the party’s National Council.

Moosa also claimed that that the party can only issue whips regarding the way in which votes are to be cast, and not on attendance at the parliament.

The disciplinary committee’s demand that he submit new membership forms when joining the party was also against the MDP’s standing orders, he added,

According to Article 114 of MDP’s constitution: “The disciplinary committee has the authority to warn, fine, suspend and expel parties proven guilty of” violating the party’s constitution, regulations, or damaging the party’s aims or reputation.

In explaining the timeline of events which preceded the parliamentary vote to dismiss the Supreme Court judges, Moosa said he had requested the parliamentary group hold a meeting to further discuss the issue.

Meanwhile in accordance with MDP’s disciplinary committee’s decision regarding the five other MDP MPs who broke the whip for the judges’ removal, their apology letters were published on the MDP’s website yesterday (4 December).


Related to this story

Reeko Moosa appeals to MDP disciplinary committee after dismissal

Reeko Moosa condemns MDP expulsion as a move to bar his 2018 presidential candidacy

Majlis removes Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Justice Muthasim Adnan from Supreme Court

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court claims “no jurisdiction” in Supreme Court bench reduction challenge

The High Court on Tuesday threw out a challenge to Judicature Act amendments that reduced the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges and resulted in the sudden removal of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan.

High Court Registrar Mariyam Afsha said the complaint’s original jurisdiction lay with the Supreme Court, and not the High Court.

The case lodged by Lawyers Shaheen Hameed, Hassan Ma’az Shareef and Mohamed Faisal, contended the revisions to the Judicature Act were unconstitutional as they forced the removal of sitting Supreme Court judges without due process.

Critics have pointed out the High Court registrar’s decision effectively means only the Supreme Court can now hear the challenge and have pointed to a Supreme Court’s conflict of interest in the matter.

According to Article 11 of the Judicature Act, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in controversies that may lead to a constitutional void, cases where two branches of the state or two institutions of the state disagree on interpreting the constitution, and in constitutional matters that affect public interest.

Article 37 of the Judicature Act gives the High Court original jurisdiction in controversies where a law or part of a law is unconstitutional or where regulations or part of a regulation is against laws and the constitution.

Removal of judges

According to Article 154 of the Constitution, a judge, once appointed, can only be removed if the watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) found the judge guilty of gross misconduct and incompetence, and if the Majlis subsequently removed the judge by a two-thirds majority of MPs present and voting.

Within hours of the amendment’s ratification on Thursday (December 11), the JSC in an emergency meeting recommended the two judges unfit for the position.

However, the JSC’s reasons were not made available to the public or MPs when the vote to dismiss the two judges proceeded on Sunday.

Shaheen, also President Yameen’s nephew, told local media that the JSC had failed to afford Faiz and Muthasim the opportunity to speak in their defense.

“[The JSC] is saying that it is alright to dismiss these first two judges by flouting all procedures, but that due process must be followed in dismissing other judges. This is gross violation of equality before the law,” he said.

The MDP had also lodged a challenge to the JSC decision with the Civil Court, but the Supreme Court took control of the case on Sunday minutes after the first hearing started.

The Supreme Court’s writ of prohibition ordered the Civil Court to “to hand over case files, with all relevant documents, to the Supreme Court before 20:45 tonight, 14 December 2014, and to immediately annul any action that may have been taken on the matter.”

The decision followed a declaration by Civil Court Chief Judge Ali Rasheed Hussein, and Judges Aisha Shujoon, Jameel Moosa, Hathif Hilmy, Mariyam Nihayath, Huseein Mazeed, and Farhad Rasheed in which they declared the move to dismiss the two judges to be against principles of natural justice and several international conventions, and could “destroy judicial independence” in the Maldives.

“We believe we are obliged to comment on the issue for the sake of the democratic and judicial history of the Maldives, and we believe keeping silent at this juncture amounts to negligence” the bench said.

The Judicature Act amendments will also divide the nine-member High Court into three branches, with three members each.

The two regional branches in the North and South will only be allowed to hear appeals in magistrate court verdicts. Only the Malé branch will be allowed to hear challenges to laws and regulations.


Related to this story

Supreme Court takes control of MDP’s Civil Court complaint on Faiz, Muthasim dismissal

Abdulla Saeed appointed as new Chief Justice, dismissed Justice Faiz laments “black day”

Civil Court condemns move to dismiss Chief Justice Faiz and Justice Adnan

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Abdulla Saeed appointed as new Chief Justice, dismissed Justice Faiz laments “black day”

President Abdulla Yameen has appointed Supreme Court Justice Abdulla Saeed as the Maldives’ new Chief Justice within an hour of Majlis unanimously approving him for the position.

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs staged a walk out prior to the vote, accusing the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) of burying the country’s 2008 democratic constitution.

MDP MP Imthiyaz Fahmy described the PPM and its coalition partner Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) as “enemies of democracy bent on taking revenge on the people after having assumed power through brute force.”

Tonight’s extraordinary session at 9pm followed an extraordinary morning session during which a two-third majority of MPs voted out incumbent Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan.

Speaking to local media today, Faiz condemned the Majlis vote as unconstitutional, and said the move raises doubts over the separation of powers and the continuation of judicial independence in the Maldives

“Today will be written down as a black day in the constitutional history of the Maldives. I state this is a black day for the constitution. Taking such a vote against the constitution is, I believe, disrespectful to the constitution,” he said.

Faiz and Muthasim were voted out after the Majlis amended the Judicature Act to reduce the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges.

The ruling coalition maintains the move will strengthen the judiciary and facilitate judicial reform.

Black day

Former President Mohamed Nasheed had appointed Faiz as the country’s first Chief Justice in 2010, days after he ordered the army to lock up the Supreme Court premises when the interim Supreme Court bench illegally declared themselves judges for life.

Faiz and Muthasim have formed the dissenting opinion in several controversial cases, including the decision to annul the first round of presidential polls in September 2010.

“Dismissal of a country’s Chief Justice against the constitution is no small matter,” Faiz told CNM today, adding “MPs are mandated to uphold democracy. But today there are doubts over how they perceive democracy.”

Faiz said he had decided not to speak in his defense prior to the vote due to conflict of interest and because he did not want politicians to benefit from any of his statements.

Muthasim was the only Supreme Court Judge with a background in common law.

New Chief Justice

Saeed, who served as the Chief Justice of the Maldives’ first interim Supreme Court from 2008 – 2010, was voted in with 55 votes.

Jumhooree Party (JP) MPs Gasim Ibrahim and Hussain Mohamed voted for Saeed despite having opposed Faiz and Adnan’s removal this afternoon. JP MPs Ali Hussein and Abdulla Riyaz, who had voted against the two judges’ dismissal, did not participate in the vote.

The watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) had recommended that the two judges be dismissed for gross misconduct and incompetence on Thursday. But details of the ruling or evaluation criteria have not been made available to MPs or the public yet.

The seven member Civil Court last night declared the Judicature Act amendment unconstitutional and said it could “destroy judicial independence” in the Maldives.

PPM MP Riyaz Rasheed said Saeed’s appointment would strengthen the judiciary and facilitate judicial reform as MDP had advocated for.

He described Saeed as an educated and capable candidate with a master in Shari’ah and law. Saeed had also committed the Qur’an to memory, Riyaz claimed.

Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed, implicated in a series of sex tapes, administered Saeed’s oath of office.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court condemns move to dismiss Chief Justice Faiz and Justice Adnan

The seven-member Civil Court and several prominent lawyers have condemned the judicial watchdog Judicial Service’s Commission’s (JSC) recommendation to remove Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan from the Supreme Court bench.

In a resolution passed last night, the Civil Court said the People’s Majlis had “forced” the JSC to deem Faiz and Adnan unfit for the Supreme Court bench without due process, through an “unconstitutional” amendment to the Judicature Act.

The amendment, passed on Wednesday and ratified on Thursday, reduced the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges.

It also mandated the JSC to deem two judges guilty of gross misconduct and gross incompetence and recommend their dismissal within three days.

The People’s Majlis is currently holding an extraordinary sitting to vote on the recommendation.

The Civil Court Chief Judge Ali Rasheed Hussein, and Judges Aisha Shujoon, Jameel Moosa, Hathif Hilmy, Mariyam Nihayath, Huseein Mazeed, and Farhad Rasheed said the move was against principles of natural justice and several international conventions, and could “destroy judicial independence” in the Maldives.

“We believe we are obliged to comment on the issue for the sake of the democratic and judicial history of the Maldives, and we believe keeping silent at this juncture amounts to negligence” the bench said.

The People’s Majlis had failed to provide the JSC with any instructions on recommending judges for dismissal, the Civil Court claimed.

The Civil Court noted the United States of America in 1886 had voted to reduce their ten-member Supreme Court to seven, by deciding the state would not appoint new members to the bench when a judge’s seat became vacant.

Meanwhile, President Abdulla Yameen’s nephews, lawyers Shaheen Hameed and Maumoon Hameed, have spoken out against the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives’ (PPM) attempt to dismiss the two judges.

Shaheen told CNM that the JSC had failed to provide Faiz and Muthasim to defend themselves against charges of misconduct and negligence.

“[The JSC] have said it is alright to dismiss these first two judges by flouting all procedures, but that due process must be followed in dismissing other judges. This is gross violation of equality before the law,” he said.

The ruling party’s “unacceptable” attempt to dismiss Faiz and Justice is the epitome of injustice, and appears to demonstrate that the Supreme Court “is a coat tailored for a specific individual,” Maumoon has said on his Facebook status.

The JSC’s sudden ruling, without an investigation and without any evidence within hours of the amendment’s ratification shows it was a pre-decided conclusion, Maumoon contended.

He also questioned why the JSC had found Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed, implicated in a series of sex tapes with three foreign women, fit for the bench.

Lawyer and Jumhooree Party MP Ali Hussein in an interview with Haveeru called the attempt at dismissals an “atrocity.” Criminals are guaranteed a fair trial, but the two judges’ right to speak in their defense had been violated, he said.

“The two were appointed because they are capable. If there has been no changes, it is an issue if they are judged incapable because of an amendment to the law. This means those who hold a majority in the JSC can get rid of judges they do not like, not because they are incapable,” he said.

MPs have not yet been given details of the JSC ruling. Speaking to Minivan News on Thursday, JSC Secretary General Abu Bakr said the commission had decided to keep proceedings confidential until a Majlis vote.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has said it will vote against the amendment. The Jumhooree Party (JP) has not yet taken an official stand while Adhaalath Party Anara Naeem said she will wait on details of the JSC verdict before she takes a stand.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Majlis to vote on Chief Justice Faiz, Justice Muthasim dismissal on Sunday

The People’s Majlis is set to vote on the dismissal of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan at an extraordinary sitting on Sunday.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has called for protests against the vote and issued a three-line-whip calling on its 23 MPs to be present for the vote.

The MDP has declared the Judicature Act amendment reducing the seven-member Supreme Court bench “unconstitutional” and announced it will challenge the move at the Supreme Court.

Faiz and Muthasim’s dismissal appear likely as ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) and coalition partner Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) control 48 seats of the 85-member house.

Parties opposed to the move, the MDP and Jumhooree Party (JP) control 23 and 12 seats respectively.

Judges can be voted out by a two-third majority of MPs present and voting. Faiz and Muthasim have formed the dissenting opinion in several controversial cases, including the Supreme Court’s decision to annul the first round of presidential polls held in September 2013.

MDP divided

MDP chairperson Ali Waheed on Thursday called on the JP to stop “the attempt to bury democracy in the Maldives.”

Meanwhile, opposition leader and former President Mohamed Nasheed in a tweet today said the biggest threat to the Maldivian nation is MPs who accept bribes.

Reliable sources have told Minivan News opposition MPs are being offered MVR2.5 million (US$162,000) each to be absent from the Majlis during the vote.

MDP MP and deputy Speaker Reeko Moosa Manik has said he will abstain from any vote on the Supreme Court bench reduction.

“I do not believe we have to come out in defense of the Chief Justice,” Moosa told newspaper Haveeru on Friday.

Pointing to the apex court’s stripping of three MDP MPs of their seats in the previous Majlis, the decision to annul the first round of presidential polls, and Faiz’s silence on Nasheed’s ouster in February 2012, Moosa said the Supreme Court had caused a lot of damage to MDP.

He had voted for the Judicature Act amendment against a three-whip line, claiming the move would facilitate judicial reform. Moosa has also announced he will contest the MDP primaries for the 2018 presidential polls, and has since accused Nasheed of excessive influence within the party.

MDP MPs Yamin Rasheed, Abdul Bari Abdulla, and Ibrahim Naseer are reportedly out of the country at present.

The MDP’s ‘In Defense of Democracy’ protest is to start at 9:00 am outside the People’s Majlis.

Dissent within PPM?

PPM MP for Kulhudhuffushi Mohamed Nasheed had abstained from the vote on the amendment on Wednesday. Haveeru has since reported of dissent within the PPM regarding the decision to reduce the Supreme Court bench.

When some PPM MPs spoke out against the amendment before it was put to vote, PPM Deputy Leader and Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb warned MPs that votes against the amendment would be seen as failure to support the government, Haveeru said.

Adeeb reportedly refused to answer why the government was seeking to reduce the bench.

Nasheed and Malé MP Ahmed Mahloof voted against a three-line whip on the amendment, an anonymous PPM MP told Haveeru.

PPM Parliamentary Group Leader Ahmed Nihan has said “there is no harm” in reducing the Supreme Court bench and described the move as a door to judicial reform.

Speaking to Haveeru, Nihan said: “The constitution does not explicitly state the number of judges on the Supreme Court bench. It doesn’t say whether it’s 13 or seven. There is no legal barrier to reducing the Supreme Court bench.”

The PPM and MDA had pushed the amendment through with 46 votes on Wednesday.

Within hours of its ratification on Thursday, the judicial watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) recommended Faiz and Muthasim’s dismissal.

Article 154 of the Constitution says a judge can only be dismissed if the JSC finds the judge guilty of gross misconduct and incompetence and if a two-third majority of MPs present and voting votes out the judge.

The JSC has declined to reveal any details of Thursday’s meeting, claiming members had decided to keep proceedings confidential until the Majlis vote.

Nihan said he could not challenge the JSC’s decision to dismiss the judges.

“When they say these are the two judges who should be dismissed based on their standards, then we will have to go ahead with it,” he said.

He also expressed surprise at MDP’s opposition to the move, claiming former President Nasheed had called Chief Justice Faiz a liar.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)