Tag: supreme court

Supreme Court forms committee to review judicial laws

The Maldives Supreme Court has formed a Multi Stakeholder Judicial Sector Law Reform Committee to review and amend judicial laws on Wednesday.

According to the Supreme Court, the committee aims to reform laws, regulations, procedures and practice rules “to pave the way for social, political, and economic changes as per the constitution, enable the judiciary to protect the democratic environment, and strengthen the criminal, civil, and juvenile justice systems.”

The committee is to consist of Supreme Court judges, the attorney general, minister of home affairs, minister of finance and treasury, prosecutor general and the commissioner of police. The Supreme Court will appoint a secretariat to facilitate the committee’s work.

Noting the difference between judicial reform and law reform, former judicial watchdog member Aishath Velezinee criticised the Supreme Court’s move as an “encroachment” on the powers of the People’s Majlis and said the results may “lead to injustice before justice.”

Although the Supreme Court may formulate regulations to improve service delivery and functioning of the court system, the apex court’s leadership role in compiling amendments to laws “is out of bounds,” she said.

The process is flawed as no one can challenge the Supreme Court’s authority, she continued.

Several documents—including the 2013 report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul—have already made recommendations on judicial reform, she said, arguing that “forming a law reform committee does not match identified issues.”

Knaul’s comprehensive report on the Maldivian judiciary called for increased financial and human resources for the judiciary, establishing performance indicators to assess administration of justice and courts’ performances, human rights training for the judicial sector and creating an integrated system of case management.

She also called for the reinstatement of the Judicial Council tasked by the Judicature Act with administration of the judiciary. The Supreme Court had abolished the body in 2010 and taken over its powers, claiming the council was unconstitutional.

“Many interlocutors reported that the dissolution of the Judicial Council and the direct control of the Supreme Court over the Department of Judicial Administration have had the effect of centralizing administrative decisions in the hands of the Supreme Court,” the special rapporteur stated.

With the council’s abolishment, “the only platform for internal communication within the judiciary where difficulties, challenges, experiences and opinions could be exchanged, disappeared,” she added.

Velezinee claimed the new law reform committee is a further example of the Supreme Court using its “power of supremacy to hinder reform.”

She also criticised the “politicised” composition of the new committee due to the absence of independent state institutions on the committee. Although the prosecutor general is to sit on the committee, the position has been vacant since November 2013, she noted.

“If this is about human rights, why is the Human Rights Commission not involved?” she said.

Moreover, disgraced Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed’s involvement in the process “undermines its purposes,” she said.

Hameed has been implicated in a series of sex tapes publicised on social media in 2013, but the JSC has failed to take any action against the judge. Meanwhile, the prosecutor general has also filed corruption charges against Hameed for misuse of state funds.

The Supreme Court has justified the expansion of its influence over judicial administration by invoking Article 141 and 156 of the constitution.

While Article 141(b) states that the Supreme Court “shall be the highest authority for the administration of justice in the Maldives,” Article 156 states, “The courts have the inherent power to protect and regulate their own process, in accordance with law and the interests of justice.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Justice Ali Hameed’s ‘corruption’ documents destroyed in coffee spill

The Criminal Court has asked the Prosecutor General’s Office (PG) to resend all files concerning Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed’s alleged misuse of state funds after case documents were destroyed in a coffee spill.

The PG has asked the Criminal Court to present the damaged documents three weeks ago, but the court has not done so yet, an official from the PGO told Minivan News.

The state is raising corruption charges against Ali Hameed over the illegal transfer of credit from his state-funded mobile phone in 2010.

An official from the Criminal Court told Minivan News on April 13 that the court had not decided to accept the case or not.

Cases filed by the PG office are scrutinised in the order of submission “to make sure all the paperwork is complete and that there are no missing documents,” he said. The process normally takes “two to three days,” he added.

The case against Justice Hameed – accused of abuse of authority to benefit a third party – was sent to the PG office in July 2013 by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) after investigating allegations in the 2010 audit report of the Department of Judicial Administration.

Auditors found that a Supreme Court Justice transferred MVR2,223 (US$144) from his state-funded mobile phone on different occasions during 2010.

According to the audit report, the interim Supreme Court bench on October 23, 2008 decided to provide for each justice “a post-paid line, a phone and to pay the phone bill without a set limit out of the court’s budget”.

The report also noted that between October 2008 and December 2011, Supreme Court judges paid their phone bills amounting to MVR 281,519 (US$18,257) from the state budget, despite the fact that parliament had not allocated any phone allowances to the judges. Additionally, MVR 117, 832 (US$7640) was found to have been overspent on wages and allowances to the driver of a judge’s car.

The judge is also currently subject to investigation over his alleged appearance in multiple leaked sex videos depicting him fornicating with foreign women in what appears to be a Colombo hotel room.

A further video also appears to show Hameed and a local businessman, Mohamed Saeed, discussing political influence in the judiciary.

Justice Hameed in the video reveals his political ‘hook-up’ with President Abdulla Yameen, claiming that he was one of Yameen’s “back-ups” and that his stand was “to do things the way Yameen wants”, promising to “kill off” Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali “if it comes into my hands.”

Even [Speaker of Parliament] Abdulla Shahid will know very well that my stand is to do things the way Yameen wants. That the fall of this government was brought with our participation,” he adds.

However, he also claims that he was a person who “even Yameen cannot play with” and that over time he had “shown Yameen” who he is.

After the sex tapes of Hameed surfaced in May 2013, the judicial oversight body, Judicial Services Commission (JSC), set up committees to investigate the case twice – in May and December 2013.

Both subcommittees unanimously recommended the JSC suspend Hameed pending an investigation.

However, in July 2013, the JSC disregarded the recommendation citing lack of evidence, while a JSC decision on the December subcommittee’s recommendation is still pending.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judicial administration brought under direct control of Supreme Court

The Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) will function in accordance with policies set by the Supreme Court bench and under the direct supervision of a designated justice, according to new rules (Dhivehi) promulgated by the apex court.

The rules made public last week states that the Supreme Court bench shall assign a justice to ensure that the DJA – tasked with management of the courts, public relations and providing facilities, training, archiving systems and security for judges – was implementing policies determined by the court.

The justice will be assigned for a one-year period with the responsibility of supervising the functioning of the department and “providing instructions and guidelines from the Supreme Court bench.”

The designated justice will also report to the bench on the operations of the DJA.

The Supreme Court stated that the rules were formulated under authority granted by articles 141 and 156 of the constitution.

While article 141(b) states that the Supreme Court “shall be the highest authority for the administration of justice in the Maldives,” article 156 states, “The courts have the inherent power to protect and regulate their own process, in accordance with law and the interests of justice.”

“Systematic takeover”

The DJA was formed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on October 1, 2008 to replace the Ministry of Justice following the adoption of the new constitution in August 2008.

While the DJA was to function under the JSC, on December 2, 2008, the Supreme Court brought the department under its remit with a ruling to that effect.

With the enactment of the Judicature Act in 2010, the DJA was reestablished with a mandate for court management, public relations, training of judges, providing for structures, facilities and archiving systems, and providing security for judges.

Although the department was to function under the Judicial Council created by the new law, the Supreme Court abolished the council in a ruling that struck down the relevant articles in the Judicature Act.

The DJA has since been functioning under the direct supervision of the apex court.

Speaking to Minivan News today, former JSC member and outspoken whistleblower, Aishath Velezinee, stressed that the administration of justice and the administration of the courts were “two different though interconnected issues.”

“The Supreme Court is misconstruing article 156 of the constitution and the appointment of a Supreme Court judge is tantamount to control of the courts,” she contended.

“This goes against the constitutional concept of independence of courts whereby each court is an independent institution, separate from the influence of other courts, including the Supreme Court. And, the own decisions of 2008 and 2011 the Supreme Court refers to are a systematic takeover of the DJA which should stand as an independent institution solely facilitating administration of the courts.”

In a comprehensive report on the Maldivian judiciary released in May 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, wrote that as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s ruling abolishing the Judicial Council, “the only platform for internal communication within the judiciary where difficulties, challenges, experiences and opinions could be exchanged, disappeared.”

“Many interlocutors reported that the dissolution of the Judicial Council and the direct control of the Supreme Court over the Department of Judicial Administration have had the effect of centralising administrative decisions in the hands of the Supreme Court,” the special rapporteur stated.

“This has undoubtedly contributed to the strong impression that lower courts are excluded from the administration of justice and decision-making processes.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Alhan alleges involvement of senior government officials in stabbing

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Alhan Fahmy has said that he believes senior officials of the current government was behind a knife attack on February 1 that left the opposition MP’s left leg paralysed.

Speaking at the last sitting of the 17th People’s Majlis today, the outgoing MP for Feydhoo noted the violent attacks on MPs during the past five years of multi-party politics and fledgling democracy, including the brutal murder of Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Dr Afrasheem Ali.

Both MPs and the public were left in a state fear by the attacks on parliamentarians, Alhan said.

Alhan was stabbed in Malé on the evening of February 1, 2014, while at the Breakwater cafe in the artificial beach area of the capital.

The results of the final MDP parliamentary primaries were officially revealed the same day, with Alhan losing the Feydhoo constituency seat to Mohamed Nihad, who received 316 votes to the incumbent’s 154.

After the results of the primary contest emerged, Alhan alleged irregularities in the vote via social media, declaring his intention to challenge the outcome.

Two suspects – Mohamed Sameeh of Shiny, Fuvahmulah, and Mohamed Naseem, of Ulfamanzil, Hithadhoo – were arrested by the police in connection with the case.

The case against the two suspects have since been forwarded to the Prosecutor General’s Office for prosecution.

Alhan has had a chequered recent past with the MDP, rejoining the party in June last year after an apparently acrimonious departure in April of the previous year. Then party vice president, Alhan was ejected – alongside then party President Dr Ibrahim Didi – after the pair publicly questioned the party’s official interpretation of the February 7 ousting of President Mohamed Nasheed.

The Feydhoo MP subsequently organised a rally – sparsely attended – calling for the freeing of the MDP from its talismanic leader Nasheed. Alhan’s soon joined the government-aligned Jumhooree Party,

Alhan was initially elected to parliament on a Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) ticket, making him one of the few MPs to have been a member of almost every major political party represented in parliament, barring the DRP’s splinter party, the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM).

He was dismissed from the DRP in 2010 for breaking the party’s whip line in a no-confidence vote against then Foreign Minister, Dr Ahmed Shaheed

Last August, Alhan was summoned by police in connection with the alleged blackmailing of Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed, using footage of the judge having sex with two foreign women said to be prostitutes.

The MP tweeted a screenshot of a text message he claimed had been sent to his mobile phone by Superintendent of Police Mohamed Riyaz. The text read: “Alhan, will make sure you are fully famed (sic) for blackmailing Justice Ali Hameed. You don’t know who we are.’’

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court orders Bar Association to change its name

The Maldives Bar Association (MBA) has been given 14 days to change its name, after the Supreme Court deemed the title inappropriate for a private organisation.

“The word ‘bar’ is used even in other countries of the world to refer to an official body formed under a law within specific guidelines, with the participation of the complete legal community and judicial sector with the mandate to uphold confidence and trust in the judiciary,” read a letter sent by the court to the Home Ministry on April 9.

The letter goes on to argue that the MBA is a private group which does not represent all lawyers, meaning that it does not have the legal mandate to represent or to speak on the behalf of the entire profession.

“Therefore, we feel that at a time when there is a law being compiled to regulate lawyers and to form a National Bar Association, the existence of an entity by the name of Maldives Bar Association, which does not have the mandate to regulate or represent lawyers within the Maldives justice system may lead to avoidable confusions,” it continued.

While, the association is yet to convene to discuss the matter, Husnu Suood has said that any action with regards to this issue by the Home Ministry will be challenged in the courts.

“My stand is that we are not going to change the name,” explained Suood, adding that the association would be happy to step aside should the new legislation provide for a ‘Bar Council’.

A 2013 UN report recommended that a “self-regulating independent bar association or council” be established to oversee the legal profession.

Suood noted that the MBA currently has over one hundred members, representing around one fifth of the country’s practising lawyers, with a full membership drive waiting until new legislation is completed.

Past clashes

The Supreme Court’s letter was sent on the same day that new regulations determining the licensing of lawyers were published by the Attorney General.

A bill to regulate the legal profession is included in the government’s 207-bill legislative agenda, to be pursued during the current administration’s five year term.

After receiving the letter, the Home Ministry today informed the Bar Association that it has 14 working days to inform the ministry of the necessary changes.

The day prior to the sending of the letter – April 8 – the Bar Association had called for the suspension of Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed pending an investigation into allegations over the judge’s appearance in a series of sex tapes.

“Definitely there is a connection between our press statement and the decision by the Supreme Court [to send the letter],” said Suood.

He also drew similarities between the court’s letter and lawyer Ibrahim Waheed’s retaliatory calls for the MBA president’s investigation for bribery – also made on April 8.

The Prosecutor General’s Office has since decided to pursue corruption charges against Judge Ali Hameed in relation to the illegal transfer of credit from his state-funded mobile phone in 2010.

The MBA’s call for Hameed’s investigation came just days after the suspension of Suood had been lifted by the court on the condition he refrain from engaging in any act that may undermine the courts.

Suood was told his January suspension was related to an allegedly contemptuous tweet regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to annul the first round of last year’s presidential election.

Suood himself, however, has claimed the suspension was in fact linked to his role on a Judicial Services Commission (JSC) committee asked to investigate the Hameed tapes.

Both the committee including Suood, and a prior JSC subcommittee have recommended Hameed’s suspension, with full commission repeatedly failing to accede to the request.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PG office presses corruption charges against Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed

The Prosecutor General’s (PG) office has pressed corruption charges against Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed Mohamed over the illegal transfer of credit from his state-funded mobile phone in 2010.

A media official from the Criminal Court told Minivan News today that the court has yet to make a decision on hearing the case.

Cases filed by the PG office are scrutinised in the order of submission “to make sure all the paperwork is complete and that there are no missing documents,” he explained.

The process normally takes “two to three days,” the media official said.

The case against Justice Hameed – accused of abuse of authority to benefit a third party – was sent to the PG office in July 2013 by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) after investigating allegations in the 2010 audit report of the Department of Judicial Administration.

Auditors found that a Supreme Court Justice transferred MVR2,223 (US$144) from his state-funded mobile phone on different occasions during 2010.

According to the audit report, the interim Supreme Court bench on October 23, 2008 decided to provide for each justice “a post-paid line, a phone and to pay the phone bill without a set limit out of the court’s budget”.

“From October 2008 to December 2011, a total of MVR281,519.71 (US$18,256) was spent on phone bills,” the report stated.

Charge sheet

The Bar Association of Maldives last week called for the suspension of Justice Hameed pending an investigation into his alleged appearance in a series of sex tapes that emerged online last year.

After the sex tapes of Hameed engaging in sexual relations with three prostitutes in a Sri Lankan hotel room surfaced in May 2013, the judicial oversight body, Judicial Services Commission (JSC), set up committees to investigate the case twice – in May and December 2013.

Both subcommittees unanimously recommended the JSC suspend Hameed pending an investigation.

However, in July 2013, the JSC disregarded the recommendation citing lack of evidence, while a JSC decision on the December subcommittee’s recommendation is still pending.

Meanwhile, the 2010 audit also discovered that MVR13,200 (US$856) was spent out of the apex court’s budget to repair a state-owned car used by an unnamed Supreme Court Justice, later revealed in the media to be Justice Hameed.

According to the police report cited by auditors, the driver of the justice’s car was responsible for the accident, which occurred on January 23, 2011.

However, the official driver insisted the car was undamaged when he parked and left it the previous night.

Despite the findings of the audit report, in March 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed allegations of corruption reported in local media regarding phone allowances and use of court funds to repair Justice Hameed’s car.

Moreover, in September 2011, the ACC began investigating allegations that over MVR50,000 (US$3,200) of state funds was spent on plane tickets for Justice Hameed’s official visit to China in December 2010.

The complainant alleged that Hameed also visited Sri Lanka and Malaysia both before and after his trip to China to attend a conference by the International Council of Jurists.

A return ticket on a direct flight from Malé to Beijing at time cost MVR16,686 (US$1,080).

Furthermore, in May 2012, the ACC revealed that Justice Hameed was among three sitting judges illegally occupying state-owned apartments.

The commission contended that a decision by parliament’s finance committee to allow the judges to purchase the flats in Sina-Male’ contravened the Judges Act and the constitution.

The ACC explained that it investigated a complaint alleging three senior judges were occupying state-owned apartments while simultaneously receiving living allowances.

The flats were leased during President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s administration by the former Justice Ministry and High Court under terms that would see the now-defunct ministry and High Court gain ownership upon completion of full payment

The three judges had reportedly been paying rent for the flats in the government-owned Sina-Malé apartment blocks when the committee decided to grant them ownership upon completion of full payment.

The ACC found that the Finance Committee’s decision to register the flats to the judges was in violation of article 102 of the constitution and article 38 of the Judges Act as well as section 100(a)(11) of the parliamentary rules of procedure.

Article 39(b) of the Judges Act states that judges in the same court shall be given the same amount as living allowances and prohibits “different kinds of living allowance or benefits for different judges.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Attorney General resumes issuing lawyers permits

The Attorney General’s (AG) Office has resumed issuing permits for lawyers after the publication of new regulations (Dhivehi) governing legal licences today.

The AG’s Office announced last December that it was ceasing the issuance of licenses pending amendments to regulations governing the legal profession.

Former Attorney Husnu Suood – also president of the Maldives Bar Association – has suggested that the regulations had been drafted without sufficient input from within the legal profession.

“We have brought to the attention of the Attorney General that the new regulation should involve the profession,” Suood told Minivan News after discussing the new regulations with fellow lawyers today.

In order to practice law in the Maldives, the new regulations state that an individuals must be a Maldivian citizen, married to a Maldivian, or reside in the Maldives, must be 18 years old, and must be of sound mind.

Prospective lawyers must not hold convictions for any hadd offences, for criminal breach of trust, or for rape. If an individual has been convicted of any other offences, seven years must have passed since the sentence was completed or pardoned.

Suood took issue with the regulation’s failure to define what the ‘other’ offences consisted of, particularly in light of the recent spate of contempt of courts cases.

“It’s very scary with the contempt issue – they can fine us or make an order for house arrest of 15-30 days. If we are unable to actually practice for seven years onward, that’s too much actually.”

A bill to regulate the legal profession is included in the government’s 207-bill legislative agenda, to be pursued during the current administration’s five year term.

In the absence of a law governing the legal profession when the new constitution was adopted in August 2008, parliament passed a General Regulations Act – recently renewed – as parent legislation for over 80 regulations without a statutory basis, including the regulation governing lawyers.

Appropriate regulator?

A 2013 report by UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul argued that the AG’s role in the regulation of the legal profession was “contrary to the basic principles on the role of lawyers”.

Powers to issue licenses to practice laws as well as enforce disciplinary measures should not rest with the executive, Knaul advised.

Moreover, Knaul recommended that a “self-regulating independent bar association or council should be urgently established to oversee the process of admitting candidates to the legal profession, provide for a uniform code of ethics and conduct, and enforce disciplinary measures, including disbarment.”

Local lawyer Mohamed Shafaz Wajeeh told Minivan News today that, for the time being, the AG’s Office was the most appropriate body to be regulating the industry.

“We already have a legislation in the pipeline with considerable involvement from the Bar Association. I hope the bill is passed soon,” said Shafaz.

The Supreme Court’s attempts to regulate the legal profession in 2012 prompted an emergency meeting of the country’s top lawyers – prior to the formation of the Bar Association in April 2013.

The court’s regulations required all lawyers to be registered with individual courts before they could represent their clients there. Open criticism of the courts was also proscribed.

Suood today suggested that the AG’s regulations now created “two parallel systems” which “contradict with each other”.

“I think that the new regulations should have included the Supreme Court regulations because one issue we face day-in and day-out is that if there is an action administrative action taken by the court, for instance contempt of court issue and they take disciplinary action, we are unable to challenge those administrative actions.”

The Bar Association earlier this week called for the suspension of Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed pending an investigation into allegations over the judge’s appearance in a series of sex tapes.

The group’s statement came just days after the suspension of its president, former Attorney General Husnu Suood, had been lifted by the court on the condition he refrain from engaging in any act that may undermine the courts.

Suood was told his January suspension was related to an allegedly contemptuous tweet regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to annul the first round of last year’s presidential election.

Charges of contempt were also used by the Supreme Court to dismiss senior members of the Elections Commission just two weeks before last month’s Majlis elections.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Foreign criticism of court verdicts tantamount to criticism of Islam, says president

President Abdulla Yameen has compared allowing international actors to criticise the Supreme Court and its verdicts as being similar to allowing people to criticise the tenets of Islam.

“This is a message I am giving especially to President Nasheed [former President Mohamed Nasheed]. If you want to maintain the eminence, dignity and sovereignty of the Maldives, do not allow foreign entitities to criticise the final verdicts released from the courts of law.”

“If you allow them to do so, you are giving them the freedom to criticise the Islamic tenets that we have amongst us,” Yameen stated, speaking at a political rally held in the island of Fuvahmulah on Wednesday night.

The president’s comments come shortly after international actors roundly condemned the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss senior members of the Elections Commission ahead of Saturday’s (March 22) Majlis elections.

Calling on Nasheed to stop criticising the judiciary, Yameen stated that this government will not create commissions to investigate events that occurred in the past.

He further stated that the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives will not try to ‘mete out punishments’ to general members of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Broadcasting Commission cannot regulate way in which Supreme Court is addressed

The Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC) has told the Supreme Court that asking media to write the names of persons in a specific way is against international best practice.

The commission’s letter was sent to the Supreme Court on Sunday (March 16) in response to a court request for MBC to enforce strict rules on how Supreme Court judges must be addressed in the media.

It was also pointed out to the court that the commission is mandated with regulating broadcast media alone.

MBC claims to have received a letter suggesting that the court’s justices were being addressed in ways other than how they should be, requesting that the commission inform all media outlets on the appropriate manner in which to write the names of the Supreme Court bench.

An official at MBC told Minivan News that the letter stipulated the Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz’s was to be preceded by the title ‘Chief Justice of the Maldives Honorable Al Ustaz’, the title ‘Justice Honorable Dr’ should be used for Justice Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi, and ‘Justice Honorable Al Ustaz’ for the rest of the bench.

MBC’s reply to the court – signed by the commission President Mohamed Shaheeb – stated that it was not within the commission’s mandate to dictate the content of any station, and that broadcasters were free to work in accordance to their own editorial guidelines in such matters.

The commission highlighted that it does only what is mandated by the Broadcasting Act and regulations, and that it ensures that all licensed broadcasters abide by the code of conduct formulated by the commission.

The Maldives Media Council – established under the Maldives Media Council Act – is mandated with establishing and maintaining a code of conduct for journalists in the country. Minivan News has learned that the council has yet to be approached by court on this matter.

Meanwhile, the Maldives Journalists Association President Ahmed ‘Hirigaa’ Zahir has said that the association is also of the view that journalists should not be forced to use names of anyone in a specific way.

“Anyone can request the media to use write their name how they want it to be written. But it should not be a requirement. Media reports in simple language,” said Zahir.

“While members of parliament are addressed as ‘honorable member’ in the parliament or justices are addressed in a specific way within the courtroom, it does not have to be the case in reporting or speaking in general public.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)