Tag: supreme court

Supreme Court gives green light for Majlis polls despite missing candidate signatures

The Supreme Court has advised the Elections Commission (EC) that Saturday’s parliamentary elections can go ahead despite 16 independent candidates not signing voter lists for 13 electoral constituencies.

The court advised that candidates refusing to sign voter lists during the period offered by the commission without raising any concerns through the official complaints mechanism “would not be an obstacle” to conducting the polls, the EC said in a press release today.

“Therefore, the Elections Commission has decided that the 18th parliamentary election will be held as scheduled on Saturday, March 22, 2014,” the press release stated.

The EC sought counsel from the apex court this week after 16 out of 114 independent candidates did not sign the voter lists. All 188 candidates representing political parties had signed the lists by noon on Sunday.

Obtaining signatures of candidates on the voter lists used at polling stations was among the 16-point guideline imposed on the EC by the Supreme Court in its judgment annulling the first round of the presidential election held on September 7 last year.

A revote ordered by the Supreme Court for October 19 was obstructed by the police hours before polls were due to open after Progressive Party of Maldives candidate Abdulla Yameen and Jumhooree Party candidate Gasim Ibrahim refused to sign the voter lists.

On the morning of October 19, police officers prevented EC staff from taking any election-related documents out of the commission’s office.

The police commissioner then informed EC members that the Maldives Police Service would not support an election held in contravention of the Supreme Court guidelines.

The Supreme Court however advised the EC yesterday that submitting complaints regarding the eligible voters registry during the window offered by the commission was the “legal responsibility” of candidates.

A candidate refusing to sign the voter list without officially lodging complaints would not affect either the legitimacy of the election or decisions made by the EC, the Supreme Court stated.

None of the 16 independent candidates who have yet to sign off on the voter lists have reportedly submitted any complaints.

The Attorney General has meanwhile advised police to cooperate with the EC in conducting the polls despite the 16 missing signatures.

The local council elections on January 18 also took place as scheduled despite candidates signing voter lists for just 81 out of 464 ballot boxes.

Of 543 independent candidates, only 147 candidates had signed the lists.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: EC crisis ends, polls as scheduled

The crisis that sought to engulf the March 22 parliamentary polls has ended as quickly as it appeared, with parliament unanimously filling an existing vacancy in the Election Commission (EC), ensuring the constitutionally-mandated quorum of three after the Supreme Court had disqualified two members – including EC President Fuwad Thowfeek and his deputy Ahamed Fayaz.

Of the three individuals nominated by President Abdulla Yameen to fill three vacancies – including the two ordered vacant by the Supreme Court – parliament cleared Ismail Habeeb to replace Ibrahim Waheed ‘Ogaru’, who resigned last October, citing health reasons.

That parliament was in no mood for any confrontation, either with the judiciary or the executive, became clear early on during the emergency sitting called by Speaker Abdulla Shahid when only 60 of the 77 sitting members turned up. No political party, starting with the the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), was known to have issued a whip on any vote that was considered imminent.

With opinion divided within the MDP on the future course of action deriving from the court verdict, as expected, the People’s Majlis took the relatively honourable  rpute of filling the earlier vacancy and leaving the court-ordered vacancies and the attended issues to be taken up possibly by the post-poll parliament. For now, Speaker Shahid announced – based on a decision by all floor leaders – that parliament would convene only after the scheduled polls of 22 March. This would help end speculation and rumours of every kind during the crucial residue of the run-up to the polls.

Second time in a row

Whatever the cause and justification, President Abdulla Yameen’s leadership – despite heading a diverse ‘ruling’ progressive coalition – has proved to be a better floor manager, twice in four months. Earlier, despite the MDP issuing a whip, the government ensured that the house cleared his 13-member cabinet as required under the constitution, without any confrontation – but cross-voting, nonetheless.

Now for a second time, MDP leader and vote-getter, former President Mohammed Nasheed, repeatedly asserted that any judicial intervention in the functioning of the EC could lead to a total boycott of the polls, the post-verdict national council meeting of the party demonstrated that many, if not most, members did not have the stomach for a showdown. It may be reflective of the national mood after the conclusion of the highly-polarised presidential polls, which also divided families in what is otherwise a closely-knit community.

The MDP’s predicament was summed up when party chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik declared himself against boycotting the polls. Talking to Haveeru after an inclusive session of the national council, he openly indicated that the national council was divided over the question. Having spent their time, energy, and more importantly their money for the upcoming polls, MDP candidates were obviously in no mood to extend their personal agonies any more than absolutely required. That was also possibly the mood within the governing parties.

Post-poll, however, the MDP leadership may be called upon to address the emerging/evolving internal crisis, which could take some form or the other in the weeks and months to come. Possibly taking a cue from the leadership, Speaker Abdulla Shahid – a relatively recent entrant into the MDP-fold – suo moto wrote to the president, the Supreme Court and others, contesting the content of the sack order against the two EC members.

MDP-controlled parliamentary committees also reacted likewise and even declared that the court-ordered sacking of the EC president and deputy was not on. However, when the matter came up before parliament, the mood was different.

Miscalculated, mistimed?

The crisis may have exposed foreign governments and international organisations for their continued lack of understanding of Maldivian politics and political manoeuvres. While sounding altruistic in the cause of Maldivian democracy – for which some of them tend to claim authorship – they refused to understand that the Maldivian polity and society had enough resilience to address internal issues, without blowing it out of proportions, or taking it to the international arena.

Even before the Supreme Court had pronounced its verdict on its suo moto contempt case against the EC, and coinciding with President Nasheed’s threat of poll-boycott, some western governments and institutions had cautioned the judiciary against such a course. They had followed it up with a more direct and more severe criticism of the judiciary and in defence of an ‘independent EC’ as it existed.

In doing so, some of them also called for ‘inclusive polls’, a term that the international community had used ahead of last year’s presidential polls, when President Nasheed faced possible disqualification flowing from a pending criminal case dating back to his presidency. The peaceful conclusion of the crisis may have now shown that they may have miscued, miscalculated, and definitely mistimed it all.

Indian non-interference

At the height of the global reaction to the judicial verdict – including from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon – President Yameen and Supreme Court Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz (he had dissented against the majority judgment) criticised the international community for interfering with the internal affairs of Maldives. Faiz, addressing critics both near to home and further afield, also cautioned that challenging verdicts ‘threatens Supreme Court’s existence’.

Yet, both simultaneously acknowledged the need for judicial reform. President Yameen, in a public rally, declaring his government’s decision to abide by the court verdict in this matter as in others also expressed the hope that the MDP would not have a problem working with his leadership on such reforms. Clearly, all this would have to wait until after the parliamentary polls, whose results, could impact on the future course. Whatever that be, the initiative would still lie with President Yameen and his ‘Progressive Coalition’ leadership.

Compared to the West, the post-verdict reaction from the immediate Indian neighbour was not hurried in coming. When it came, it was balanced. Noting “with concerns the removal of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Elections Commission of Maldives”, a statement from India’s Ministry of External Affairs, welcomed the post-verdict “commitment expressed by the Government of Maldives to holding the parliamentary elections” as scheduled on 22 March.

The Indian statement was noticeable for absence of any reference to the Maldivian judiciary, this time as throughout the presidential poll crisis last year. Traditionally, too, the Indian political class and public administrators have been extremely respectful of the judicial processes back in the country, and have been even more wary of commenting on them.

Independent of their private opinion, if any, on judicial behaviour, processes, and pronouncements, successive governments in India – and more importantly, all legislatures across the country – have been known to honour court verdicts. Where a confrontation had looked imminent, particularly between the judiciary and legislature, the habit has been for the latter to honour the final pronouncement of the former, after what initially might have looked like deadlock.

The discourse and debates on such matters have mostly stopped within the court premises, or within the precincts of the legislatures. Court verdicts have rarely been made subject of public debate or discourse in India.

Even where political, journalistic, or academic criticism has been made, the authors have been circumspect to the point of erring on the right side of the public regard for judiciary as the final arbiter of constitutional issues and public morals. A situation like the one that could have evolved in Maldives just now has had the potential to create a constitutional deadlock, which the Indian leaderships at all levels have consistently avoided in the country – and would not wish on any other country, particularly a ‘friendly neighbour’, where such a course could have threatened political stability for a long time to come.

Era of the unknown

Post-poll, Maldivian polity could be expected to slowly but surely re-position itself for the future, targeting the series of presidential, local council and parliamentary polls that are now due in 2018-19. Among the ever-increasing numbers of young voters, including first-time voters, democracy is here to stay, and purported threats to the democratisation process that commenced at the turn of the century, are in their parents’ memory, possibly still fresh.

Developments, such as the one now confronted, could flag concerns in their minds, but such concerns would come to pass as the crises too pass as fast as they emerge. This could set off a sense of democratic complacency that is commonplace in most, if not all, democracies. They could see motives where altruism may still be the only cause. In turn, this could contribute to, and necessitate in political parties and leaderships a realignment of their policy priorities and programmes over the next five years, in preparation for an ‘era of the unknown’.

Immediately, however, after the conclusion of the last of the series of polls this season, individual parties would be tempted to look internally and take stock, to reposition themselves for the future. Figure-head leaders of every party and group and the parties that they are associated with will (have to) take stock.

In helping the transition to the future, where the adversity of the past decade, requires to be tempered by reason and a collective will to make Maldives peace-loving and prosperous all over again, the government will have to initiate legal and political measures that are aimed at institutionalising facilitating mechanisms for the purpose. Again, the initiative would lie with the government and President Yameen – no matter the parliamentary poll results.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Week in review: March 9 – 14

This week’s headlines were largely dedicated to the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the senior leadership of the Elections Commission (EC) on charges of contempt of court and disobedience to order.

The decision – which also included a six month sentence for EC Chair Fuwad Thowfeek – brought international condemnation as well as universal praise for the work of the commission.

The EU observer mission, currently in the country for the scheduled March 22 poll, quickly pointed out the considerable “time pressure” on a timely and credible election.

Domestically, both the Maldivian Democratic Party’s Mohamed Nasheed and the People’s Majlis declared the decision unconstitutional.

The Majlis Secretariat relayed this message in writing to Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and senior government figures, while a Majlis committee stated that it still considered the dismissed members to be elections commissioners.

Alternatively, government supporters quickly backed the decision, with President Yameen saying that the government would abide by the ruling. Yameen also criticised the opposition’s discussion – conducted without a resolution – of boycotting the polls.

The President’s Office rounded on the court’s international naysayers while the chief justice said that the international statements included “falsified claims, and undermine the respect and authority of the Maldivian judiciary”.

Fears that the EC would not be able to conduct the election without its quorum were soon assuaged, however, as Ismail Habeeb – nominated to the commission after the resignation of the fifth EC member last October – was approved by the Majlis.

The PPM has called for the final two places on the commission to be filled before the elections, though Speaker Shahid has prorogued parliament until after the vote.

Other news…

Elsewhere this week, police seized 24kg of what was suspected to be heroin in their biggest haul to date, while repeated confiscation of unusual pets during drugs raids – as well as a python on the streets of Malé – prompted customs to tighten security in order to prevent the import of illegal animals.

The export of legal animals – in the form of Halal certified fish – is a policy the Islamic Ministry this week claimed was generating great enthusiasm.

Leaders at the Chamber of Commerce rounded on the EU’s trade policies with regards to Maldivian fish, suggesting a fisherman’s protest could be on its way.

One protest did arrive this week, at the international airport, as staff demonstrated against bad bonuses and worse food.

The Human Rights Commission was summoned to the Juvenile Court after repeated attempts to discuss a report the court claimed misled the public about the handling of the infamous 15 year old flogging trial.

Maldivian Development Alliance leader Ahmed ‘Sun’ Shiyam was presented to the Criminal Court this after failing to attend previous hearings regarding his alleged attempts to smuggle alcohol into the country in 2012.

Already in custody, Maldivian Democratic Party MP Abdulla Jabir learned this week that he would remain during his appeal case for his recent conviction.

Finally, local NGO Advocating for the Rights of Children (ARC) launched an anti-bullying campaign in Malé as well as a new network to support the rights of disabled children.

Meanwhile, the Maafushi jail inmate – left in a coma with critical head injuries after being attacked by cellmates last month – was flown to Sri Lanka for further treatment.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

EC dismissals: Commonwealth, UK, EU, and India join international chorus of concern

The Commonwealth, UK, EU, and India have joined a growing international chorus expressing concern with the Supreme Court’s removal of the Elections Commission (EC) chair and deputy chair over charges of contempt of court.

“Such action by the court less than two weeks before the [parliamentary] election could be viewed as potentially affecting the electoral process adversely,” read a statement released yesterday by the Commonwealth secretariat.

The UK described the move as an “unprecedented expansion of judicial powers”, while India urged respect for the constitution. EU High Representative Catherine Ashton called the ruling a “serious setback in the democratic transition of the country.”

A statement from the President’s Office meanwhile called upon international partners to respect the Maldives’ constitution, echoing a statement released by the Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz on Tuesday (March 11).

The Supreme Court ruling on Sunday left the EC without the three members required for a legal quorum to hold meetings and finalise decisions ahead of the polls scheduled for March 22.

Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma noted the parliament’s approval of a new member to the EC yesterday, which ensures that the quorum is restored.

“We hope that a credible and inclusive parliamentary election can be held in accordance with the constitution, and that Maldivians will be able to cast their votes with confidence and with the will of the people being respected,”  the secretary-general said.

The secretary-general stressed that separation of powers was “a fundamental political value” of the Commonwealth.

“For a democracy to function effectively, it is critical that institutions operate within their own constitutional mandate and do not encroach either on the ability of other independent institutions to execute their own remits or on the constitutional authority of other branches of government,” he stated.

“Actions that undermine the independence of an elections commission have a negative effect on democracy as a whole.”

The secretary-general noted that the Commonwealth Observer Group to the Maldives for last year’s presidential polls had recommended that “there should be better recognition of the mandate and statutory and constitutional independence of the Elections Commission.”

The Commonwealth statement also noted that the Supreme Court “assumed new powers enabling it to initiate cases”.

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

Yesterday’s flurry of statements followed condemnation of the Supreme Court decision by the United States, Canada and the United Nations earlier this week.

In response, the President’s Office has contended that “negative external reaction to judicial decisions” undermined the constitution and hindered efforts for consolidation of democracy.

“Unprecedented expansion of judicial powers”

The UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Hugo Swire expressed “deep disappointment” with the Supreme Court’s dismissal and sentencing of the EC chair.

“The charges laid and the procedures adopted represent an unprecedented expansion of judicial powers,” the Foreign Office statement read.

The Supreme Court’s contentious ruling “appears to undermine the hard won independence of the Election Commission. This is extremely worrying so close to parliamentary elections,” the statement read.

Noting the appointment of a new member to the EC, the minister urged the government to ensure that the “the Election Commission’s independence is swiftly restored and to ensure that inclusive, free and fair Parliamentary elections are held within constitutional deadlines and in line with international standards.”

“This is essential for the consolidation of democracy in the Maldives and for the country to uphold its international reputation after the difficult events of the last two years.”

The EU’s statement commended the work of the EC, noted the key role of an independent elections body in a democracy, and drew attention to its team of monitors currently in the Maldives for this month’s poll.

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs meanwhile issued a press release welcoming the “commitment expressed by the government of Maldives to holding the parliamentary elections as scheduled”.

“India has consistently supported the strengthening of democratic processes and institutions in the Maldives. In this context, the Government of India has noted with concern the removal of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Elections Commission of Maldives from their positions and deferred prison sentence of the Chairperson,” the press release stated.

As “a close friend and neighbour of the Maldives”, the Indian government urged state institutions and political parties to respect the constitution and rule of law.

The statement also expressed hope that the EC’s independence will be ensured and that “the forthcoming parliamentary elections are held in a free, fair and credible manner, fulfilling the democratic aspirations of the people of Maldives.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

EC dismissals: Government calls on international partners to respect Maldivian constitution

The government has called on international partners to respect the Maldivian constitution and democratic processes following condemnation of the Supreme Court’s controversial removal of the Elections Commission (EC) chair and deputy chair.

The appeal was made in a statement released by the President’s Office last night welcoming parliament’s approval of a new EC member, which “enables the EC to function with the legally required quorum and hold the general elections scheduled for 22 March 2014.”

“Negative external reaction to judicial decisions of the Maldives challenges the domestic institutions and national processes, thereby undermining the constitution of the Maldives and hindering the ongoing process of democracy consolidation,” the statement read.

It added that strengthening of state institutions was “an ongoing process,” and noted that “high-profile” cases remained stalled at court.

“The government is always ready to work with interested external actors through a process of dialogue and cooperation based on mutual respect in working towards consolidating democracy in the Maldives.”

Since the adoption of the 2008 constitution that established a presidential system with separation of powers, the Maldives has “experienced a vibrant democratic process that has enabled the nascent system to flourish,” the President’s Office said.

The statement comes as the UK, India, and the Commonwealth joined the US, Canada, and the UN in expressing concern with the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the elections commissioners.

The President’s Office statement also echoed calls by Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon earlier this month urging international partners not to “undermine our judicial system.”

The President’s Office also suggested that its submission to parliament of candidates to fill the vacancies in the commission demonstrated “the government’s unshakable commitment to the independence of the EC”.

“The government of Maldives is fully committed to ensuring the constitutionally guaranteed independence, professionalism, and integrity of the Elections Commission,” the statement read.

The President’s Office argued that parliament’s decision to approve Ismail Habeeb Abdul Raheem to the EC was “consistent with the Supreme Court verdict” dismissing the EC chair and deputy chair.

“In compliance with the verdict, the government proposed to the Majlis for consideration and to vote on the names of candidates to fill the remaining two vacant positions at the Elections Commission,” it added.

Despite parliament’s approval of Ismail Habeeb Abdul Raheem yesterday to replace former EC member Ibrahim ‘Ogaru’ Waheed – who resigned in October citing poor health – the opposition-majority independent institutions committee has declared that EC Chair Fuwad Thowfeek and Deputy Chair Ahmed Fayaz remained EC members

The move followed a letter sent to President Abdulla Yameen, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, and Attorney General Mohamed Anil by Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid contending that the dismissals were unconstitutional.

The letter – based on legal advice provided by parliament’s Counsel General Fathmath Filza – stated that the pair were removed in violation of procedures specified in both the constitution and the Elections Commission Act for the appointment and dismissal of EC members.

Article 177 of the constitution states that an EC member could be removed from office if a parliamentary committee established “misconduct, incapacity or incompetence” and  “upon the approval of such finding by the People’s Majlis by a majority of those present and voting.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

EC dismissals: “Falsified” accounts by international community undermining judiciary, says Chief Justice

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz has accused the international community of fabricating lies regarding the Supreme Court’s verdict against the Elections Commission (EC).

In doing so, “they have engaged in a battle against the constitution with an independent nation”, said Faiz.

The Chief Justice released a statement strongly condemning statements released by the US State Department and the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday.

These voices of disapproval were joined today by Australia, which has similarly expressed concern over recent developments, noting its “firm expectation” that scheduled elections will go ahead “in a manner that is free, fair, credible and peaceful”.

In his response to such comments, Faiz claimed that neither international countries nor organisations have the authority to criticise and spread falsifications regarding any verdict of the Supreme Court.

Claims by the international community that the apex court is unduly influencing the work of the EC and undermining their independence is against the truth, argued the chief justice.

“I would like to say that these statements regarding a Supreme Court verdict in an internal legal case of the Maldives are inclusive of falsified claims, and undermine the respect and authority of the Maldivian judiciary,” said Faiz.

“They are thus an irresponsible act by the international community, one conducted without observing the events occurring in the Maldives or getting clarifications of the matter from local authorities. I thereby strongly condemn these statements,” the statement read.

“The Maldives is a free and independent state. It is a sovereign state which rules over itself. The releasing of falsified accounts and statements of the Maldives’ Supreme Court’s actions to fulfill its legal obligations is neither an assistance towards consolidating democracy in the Maldives nor towards maintaining rule of law or strengthening of the justice system.”

Faiz emphasized that he would continue to fulfill his legal obligations concerning the mandates of the courts, and that he would do so without any hesitation towards or consideration of international opinion.

Challenging the Supreme Court

Faiz also condemned local groups’ criticism of the verdict. The Maldivian Democratic Party and the Majlis secretariat have both deemed the ruling unconstitutional.

Faiz stated that the most important duty of the apex court is to establish justice, rule of law and to maintain the empowerment of law, and the constitution requires that the Supreme Court has the final say in the interpretation of laws.

He further noted that it was the constitutional responsibility of all state authorities to maintain the respect and positive reputation of the courts.

“While this is so, when the few persons in charge of running the matters of the state repeatedly challenged the verdicts of the Supreme Court and undermined the respect towards the courts, it was an act that certainly eroded people’s trust in one branch of the state and an act that paved the way to the obliteration of the foundation of the Supreme Court,” Faiz continued.

“There is no doubt that the failure to take action against such acts – despite them becoming alarmingly common – negatively affects the Constitution of the Maldives and casts a shadow over the courts of law.”

“It is an incontestable reality that it is a danger to our constitution when there are matters in the judiciary which need to be reformed through the joint efforts of all state authorities, and instead of constructive work to achieve this, the courts are challenged and the judiciary is attacked.”

Faiz concluded the statement asserting that he will continue to work according to his mandate regardless of the criticism that comes his way, and without any hesitation despite any criticisms or obstacles that may be put forth by international organisations and foreign countries.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

EC dismissals: President pledges to abide by court ruling, criticises MDP boycott talk

President Abdulla Yameen has said the government will ensure that rule of law prevails, and that executive will respect and abide by Supreme Court rulings.

“God willing, my government will definitely uphold the rule of law. All entities of my government will abide by the Supreme Court ruling,” Yameen said last night.

Speaking at the campaign launching ceremony of ruling Progressive Party of Maldives’ (PPM) VilliMalé constituency candidate Ahmed Nihan, Yameen stated that it was not acceptable practice in “civilised societies” for other institutions to criticise decisions made by the Supreme Court.

However, when Nihan himself was asked about the courts decision on Sunday evening, the MP expressed his reluctance to make any comment.

“I would have to really think twice before I go ahead and say anything about the Supreme Court,” he said. “The Supreme Court may think that it’s a contempt of law if I said anything.”

Announcing that the President’s Office had called for applications to the vacant posts in the Elections Commission (EC), Yameen reiterated the government’s stand that it would complete all necessary preparations to hold the Majlis elections on March 22 as stipulated by the apex court’s ruling.

“We are working to ensure that we have some names by 3pm on Thursday. God willing, we will complete the work tasked to us by the Supreme Court within the six days they have assigned to us,” he continued.

Yameen stated that his government would not question verdicts released by the Supreme Court and that his administration had complete respect for the judges on the bench.

However, the president did admit that judicial reform must be discussed, adding that “this includes the issue of delays in case completion. Even MDP [opposition Maldivian Democratic Party] members will accept that there are some cases that have been halted midway.”

“Even President Nasheed himself will believe that there are certain cases which do not proceed at all in our judiciary,” said Yameen.

“You can’t achieve results by playing the game off the field”: Yameen

President Yameen further stated that he finds the tendency of first world countries to “interfere” in internal matters of small countries in a manner that contradicts “the lessons in governance that they continue to deliver” to be highly concerning.

“I have even previously stated when I was working in the presidential campaign that in our administration, we will maintain the independence and sovereignty of deciding on our internal affairs in Maldivian hands. God willing, our government will achieve that,” he stated.

Referring to the opposition party’s consideration of boycotting the upcoming parliamentary elections, Yameen argued that “you can’t achieve results by playing the game off the field”.

He called on the MDP members to participate in the elections and join the parliament if they wanted to bring reforms, especially to the judiciary.

“I want to say to all MDP members that the Maldives is a country belonging to every one of us. This is not particularly Adhaalath Party’s Maldives. Nor is it specifically PPM’s Maldives. Nor is it Jumhooree Party’s Maldives. And especially, this is not just the MDP’s Maldives. This country belongs to all of us,” Yameen stated.

He stated that the MDP should not resort to boycotting the elections, and must come out and vote. He added that it is crucial in a modern society to demonstrate via parliament how one should act when power begins from the people.

“Depriving membership for themselves from an institution elected for a five year term – depriving their members from their right to have their feelings expressed – this is not a manner in which a political party would act in a modern environment,” the president said.

Meanwhile, the MDP held a meeting of its National Council yesterday night with the intention of deciding whether or not to boycott the approaching polls.

While the meeting was closed to media, some local news outlets were able to report proceedings.

According to local media, two proposals were made at the meeting – former President Nasheed proposed boycotting the upcoming elections and protest the Supreme Court’s decision, while another unnamed member is said to have proposed that the party protest but that it still participate in the election.

The meeting was brought to a halt by Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik citing differences of opinion, with a follow up meeting to be scheduled in the near future.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

EC dismissals: Majlis says commissioners’ removal was unconstitutional

The People’s Majlis has written to the chief justice and the attorney general, stating that the president and vice president of the Election Commission (EC) were removed contrary to the constitutional procedures governing their appointment and dismissal.

The letter – signed by Speaker Abdulla Shahid and Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim – also noted that the move contravened the Elections Commission Act.

According to Majlis, the content of the letter was based on legal advice of parliament’s counsel general after her analysis of the Supreme Court’s verdict.

The Supreme Court yesterday sentenced EC President Fuwad Thowfeek to six months imprisonment under Article 88(a) of the penal code, and ordered the enforcement of the sentence be delayed for a period of three years.

The verdict also declared that Fuwad and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz had “lost the right and legal status to remain members of the commission and that the pair’s seats on the commission have become vacant”.

The letter stated that it was the People’s Majlis which is tasked with the appointment and removal of EC members, and that for any given reason a member of that commission can only be removed by a simple majority of votes in a parliament sitting as “clearly stated” in Article 177 of the constitution and Article 14 of the Elections Commission Act.

“Referring to the said article of the constitution and the elections commission act, it is clear that the authority to appoint and remove member from that commission is especially reserved for the People’s Majlis without the involvement of any other party.”

The letter also said that the removal of the pair by the Supreme Court contravenes the procedures specified in Article 177 of the constitution and Articles 5, 10, and 14 of the EC Act.

The letter referred to a number of statements from the Supreme Court’s verdict nullifying parliament’s removal of Mohamed Fahmy Hassan from the Civil Service Commission (CSC) in March last year.

The Majlis today noted that the constitutional procedures for removing EC members and CSC members were the same, saying that the court’s previous ruling had said the following:

“It is clear from the letter of the constitution that the constitution does not allow any of the three powers of the state to carry out the constitutional jurisdiction or functions of another, and that it is clearly stated that the system of separation of powers, and check and balance established between three powers by constitution is an principal feature of the constitutional system and the constitution of the Maldives.”

Referring to the same verdict, the letter said that the court had stated that “all powers of the state should fulfil their jurisdictions and functions within the constitutional limits set for that power by the constitution”.

The same ruling also stated that constitutional procedures regarding independent institutions are there to ensure their independence. In this regard, the verdict noted that tasking the executive with appointment, the parliament with removal and accountability, and the chief justice with oath taking are also check and balance procedures established under the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

EC dismissals: Translation of Supreme Court verdict

The following is an unofficial translation of the Supreme Court verdict removing Elections Commission (EC) President Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz from their posts for contempt of court.

While the verdict delivered in court included an order for the relevant authorities to investigate EC members for contempt of court “through criminal justice procedures,” the copy of the verdict later shared with media did not include such an order.

The Supreme Court has reportedly insisted that there was no difference between the verdict read out at court and the copy shared with media hours later.

Although Minivan News attended the trial, the reporting of the sentencing was based on the consensus of journalists in attendance after confusion concerning the jail sentence.

Local media reported without exception that all four EC members were sentenced to jail. However, the verdict later shared with media stated that only Fuwad Thowfeek was sentenced.

Meanwhile, Thowfeek as well as observers from civil society organisations inside the court room were under the impression that both Thowfeek and Fayaz were sentenced.

“The Supreme Court said they are giving six months jail term to Vice Chair Fayaz and me and that will be executed after a three year period and that we have been removed from out position in the elections commission and we are no longer Elections Commission members,” Thowfeek told Minivan News last night.

Contacted by Minivan News today, a Supreme Court media official declined to confirm or deny any discrepancies. The full judgment (Dhivehi) including the reasoning and dissenting opinions was uploaded to the Supreme Court website today.

Verdict:

Whereas the right to vote in elections and public referendums and to take part in the conduct of public affairs directly or through freely chosen representatives is guaranteed for every citizen of the Maldives 18 years of age or older by Article 26 of the constitution of the Republic of Maldives; and while ensuring that all elections and public referendums are conducted freely and fairly, without intimidation, aggression, undue influence or corruption is stipulated by Article 170 of the constitution; and as the Elections Commission had not complied with both the Supreme Court judgment in case number 2013/SC-C/11 that struck down articles eight and 11 of law number 4/2013 (Political Parties Act), which required a minimum of 10,000 members to register and operate a political party, since it was in conflict with both the constitution of Republic of Maldives as well as practices of developed democratic societies in the world, and the Supreme Court order 2014/SC-SJ/01 – issued after the Elections Commission announced its intention of dissolving political parties with less than 3,000 members in violation of the judgment delivered in the case – ordering the Elections Commission not to dissolve political parties already registered in the Maldives despite not having a minimum of 3,000 members for reasons specified in Supreme Court case number 2013/SC-C/11, stating that dissolving parties already registered on the basis that a political party’s registry should include 3,000 members would be a violation of the constitution and the judgment in the Supreme Court case number 2013/SC-C/11, and that parties registered under the previous political parties regulation will continue to exist without being dissolved; and as the Elections Commission’s senior officials have openly displayed disobedience to articles 141(c) and (d) and 145 (c) of the constitution and articles 20(b) and 77‡‡ of the Judicature Act through the media and challenged the Supreme Court’s rex judicata [a matter already judged] judgment in case number 2013/SC-C/42 as well as the orders related to the 2013 presidential election that were issued to protect the basic rights guaranteed by the constitution for Maldivian citizens, to uphold the rule of law, to protect the constitutional right of Maldivians to vote in elections, and in public referendums, conducted freely and fairly, without intimidation, aggression, undue influence or corruption and to guarantee that elections are held under the conditions specified under Article 170 of the constitution, obstructed justice and brought the court into disrepute, in addition to the commission’s President Fuwad Thowfeek’s statements made during the trial against the Supreme Court’s procedures and jurisdictions, which held the court in contempt, and since these actions of Fuwad Thowfeek are such that it could diminish the dignity of the courts stated in Article 141*(c) and (d) of the constitution, [we] sentence Fuwad Thowfeek of Ma. Thalhamudhige to six months imprisonment under Article 88(a) of the penal code, and order that the enforcement of the sentence be delayed for a period of three years, with reference to Article 88 of the Supreme Court regulations, under the Supreme Court’s powers and responsibilities granted by articles 11††(1)(2)(3), 9(f) and 22‡of the Judicature Act to establish justice, prevent the misuse of the judiciary and uphold the honour and dignity of the judiciary as stated in Article 141 of the constitution; and since after assuming the responsibilities of their posts with an oath to uphold the constitution, the Elections Commission’s President Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz, who have to bear the responsibility of running the Elections Commission in accordance with the law, stepped aside from fulfilling their legal responsibilities, challenged and disobeyed judgments and orders issued by the Supreme Court in its capacity as the guardian of the constitution and laws, (we) determine that Elections Commission President Fuwad Thowfeek of Ma. Thalhamudhige, and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz of M. Hazaareevilla, must legally bear responsibility as the two seniormost officials of the commission for disobeying and challenging Supreme Court judgments outlining the legal perspective as well as the court’s orders, and since these actions contravene Article 145 (c)** of the constitution and Article 20 of the Judicature Act and diminishes the dignity granted to the court by Article 141(c) and (d), [we] declare that Elections Commission President Fuwad Thowfeek of Ma. Thalhamudhige, and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz of M. Hazaareevilla, have lost the right and legal status to remain members of the commission and that the pair’s seats on the commission have become vacant, under the powers and responsibilities granted to the Supreme Court by articles 11(1)(2 (3), 9(f)† and 22 of the Judicature Act to establish justice and prevent the misuse of the judiciary and to uphold the honour and dignity of the judiciary as stated in Article 141 of the constitution and with reference to Article 88 of the Supreme Court regulations ; and [we] order the executive, parliament and the Elections Commission to complete all the necessary arrangements for conducting the People’s Majlis elections which are to be held in 2014 on the date for which it has been scheduled within the next six days (including holidays), and order the Elections Commission and all relevant state institutions to hold the election as planned.

—

*Article 141 of the constitution states, “(a) The judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, the High Court, and such Trial Courts as established by law (b) The Supreme Court shall be the highest authority for the administration of justice in the Maldives. The Chief Justice shall be the highest authority on the Supreme Court. All matters adjudicated before the Supreme Court shall be decided upon by a majority of the judges sitting together in session (c) No officials performing public functions, or any other persons, shall interfere with and influence the functions of the courts (d) Persons or bodies performing public functions, through legislative and other measures, must assist and protect the courts to ensure the independence, eminence, dignity, impartiality, accessibility and effectiveness of the courts.

**Article 145 (c) states, “The Supreme Court shall be the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution, the law, or any other matter dealt with by a court of law.”

†Article 9(f) of the Judicature Act states that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction extends to “all matters adjudicated by the Supreme Court under the powers bestowed upon the court as the highest authority for the administration of justice.”

††Article 11(a) states, “The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on constitutional issues with the following characteristics as matters within the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: 1. An issue with legal reasons which may send the country into a constitutional void or remove it from the constitutional framework; or 2. A dispute between two powers or institutions of the state regarding the interpretation of the Constitution; or 3. A constitutional issue concerning public interest of the nation.”

‡Article 22 states, “In addition to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court in its own right by the constitution and the jurisdiction of the court laid out under various articles of this Act, the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to do the following: a) The power to give all orders under this Act and the Supreme Court Regulation, relating to a matter ora case submitted to the court, and to administer justice with regard to such matters or cases, and to take necessary actions to prevent the misuse of the judicial system and to uphold the confidence in the judicial system, b) In its own initiative or at the behest of a concerned party, in order to administer justice and to prevent the exploitation of the judicial system the power to issue various orders in accordance with the law, if any party is found to have violated this law or any principles of the Supreme Court regulation, c) In accordance with the law and regulation, the power to summon people in relation to a case or matter submitted to the Supreme Court, d) In relation to a case or matter submitted to the Supreme Court and for the purpose of finding the truth or any facts surrounding the case, the power to pose any question to any witness or party to the case at any time or in any manner, e) The power to issue an order requesting for the submission of any document required by the court in relation to a case or matter submitted to the Supreme Court.”

‡‡Article 77 states, “In carrying out the ruling of a court if it has not be delayed by that court or a court where the case was appealed, the ruling of every court is binding towards, the executive,parliament, the judiciary, persons in independent positions, state institutions, persons fulfilling state positions, the security service sector composing of the police and defence force and all other members of the public.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)