Tag: supreme court

Translation: Supreme Court v. HRCM

Case number: 2014/SC-SM/42
Defendant: Human Rights Commission of the Maldives
Type: Suomoto
Date trial began: 16 September 2014
Date trial ended: 16 June 2015
Bench: Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, Abdulla Areef, Ali Hameed Mohamed, Adam Mohamed Abdulla, Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi

Case summary:

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, in the Universal Periodic Review Report, April- May 2014 (session 22), under the subheading access to justice (page 4), unlawfully spread false information about the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, the constitutional and legal procedures followed by the courts of the Maldivian judiciary in conducting trials and ensuring justice, and the procedures followed by the courts in releasing information. The commission has circulated this report in the Maldives and abroad. In the report, the commission described the Supreme Court’s mandate – acting in its role as the highest authority for the administration of justice in the Maldives and as per international best practices and the Maldivian Constitution—as controlling the courts of the Maldives. In doing so, the commission has deliberately attempted to undermine the independence of one of the three branches of the Maldivian state, i.e. the independent judiciary. The commission has also damaged the Maldives’ independence and sovereignty, and deliberately attempted to undermine the Constitution of the Maldives. This case was initiated by the Supreme Court to hold accountable the members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives in a court of law, under powers vested in the Supreme Court as the highest administrator of justice in the Maldives, under Article 141 (b) of the Constitution, Article 9 (f) of the Judicature Act (Law no: 22/2010), and Article 86 of the Supreme Court regulations. The defendant in this case is the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives.

Points of note:

The Supreme Court –with reference to the facts, documents, evidence, testimony provided by the members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives in court, the Constitution, the Judicature Act, other relevant laws, and norms accepted in democratic societies – notes the following:

a) First, the most fundamental principle of international law is the principle of non-intervention in the sovereignty and the domestic affairs of another state. This is also the foremost pillar of the Maldivian democratic system. The Maldives has the right, based on the principle of sovereign equality and sovereign immunity, to participate in the international community as an equal to other states. It is unlawful for any party or individual to commit acts against national security and interests, as per the Constitution of the Maldives. Further, similar to other states, it is only the executive function (Sultha – Siyasiyya) that can represent the Maldivian state. According to international law, the Maldivian state is mandated to fulfill the three conditions of statehood i.e. territory, the citizens and the executive function. There is no legal dispute over the fact that the executive function has the sovereign power to conduct its own affairs in accordance with constitutional principles designated by the state within the state’s sovereign jurisdiction. Further, Article 2 of the Constitution states that the Maldives is a sovereign, independent, democratic republic based on the principles of Islam, and is a unitary state. The three branches of the executive function are the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch. The powers of these three branches are clearly defined in Article 5,6 and 7 of the Constitution.

b) Second, given Article 115 (j) (k) of the Constitution states that it is the president who is authorized to determine, conduct and oversee the foreign policy of the country, to conduct political relations with foreign nations and international organizations, to enter into general treaties and agreements with foreign states and international organizations, which do not impose any obligations on citizens, and to enter into and ratify, with the approval of the People’s Majlis, treaties and agreements with foreign states and international organizations, which impose obligations on citizens,

and given that the legal procedures of the sovereign and legal system and international procedures state that acts such as dissemination of information and reports in the name of the state to foreign bodies, to meet international obligations, must be organized within the state,

It is clear that any act committed by any party or institution that contravenes these procedures is unlawful and violates the principle of supremacy of the Constitution laid out in Article 299 of the Constitution and the principle of rule of law.

c) Third, in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), it is stated that human rights should be protected by the rule of law. Article 8 and 10 of the UDHR state that everyone has the right to an effective remedy by courts or national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted to them by the constitution or by law, and that everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charges against them. Hence, it is known that the final authority to apply legal principles lies with the courts.

With reference to the principle of the rule of law, and to Article 42 (a) of the Constitution of the Maldives that states that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent court or tribunal established by law to determine one’s civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge, and with reference to the abovementioned clauses of the UDHR, and with reference to the supervisory role granted to the Supreme Court – in order to uphold the responsibility of protecting individual and communal rights and to strengthen and improve access to justice – by Article 141 (b) of the Maldives Constitution,

and while Article 143 (b) and (d), and Article 144 and Article 145, grant the Maldives Supreme Court, similar to the apex courts in other democratic societies, the power, in its supervisory authority to ensure basic rights, to issue habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, writ of prohibition, and quo warranto prerogative writs, and while the procedures to issue such rulings have been decided by the Maldives’ legal system and by the Supreme Court’s rulings,

the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives has prepared a report that provides false information about these legal procedures, without referring to official sources such as the Constitution, laws and regulations, and court rulings.

It is clear this information is baseless from the confession of the members of the Human Rights Commission in court. Even though members in court said they had provided information in such a manner because the Supreme Court had not responded to requests for information on these procedures, they were unable to prove to any extent that they had made a request for such information. While laws and regulations concerning the courts, and court rulings are made available to the public, there is no law that allows the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives to write a report containing false information regarding these provisions.

This act by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives contravenes Article 189 of the Constitution that states that the commission must be an independent and impartial commission that shall promote respect for human rights, impartially without favor and prejudice. It also contravenes the Human Rights Commission Act (Law no: 6/2006) that states the commission must promote human rights in line with the Constitution of the Maldives.

d) Fourth, the preparation of the above-mentioned report was unlawful as it contained information that is false, and information that misleads [the public] about the jurisdiction of the courts. Hence, the preparation and the dissemination of the report by the Human Rights Commission amounts to interference with the judiciary’ work and undue influence of the judiciary. It also contravenes Article 141 (c) and (d) of the Constitution and international norms, and clearly violates the independence granted to the judiciary by international laws. It is known from the commission members’ testimony in court that the information included in the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives’ report is false and based on unreliable sources. It is clearly known from the Constitution, laws and regulations regarding judicial procedures, and from court verdicts, that the Maldivian courts conduct trials, as in other democratic societies, according to legal procedures which are written to ensure fair trial. The Maldivians state is one that maintains respect for obligations under international covenants that it is party to, and on its own initiative, passes laws to protect human rights in line with international standards, and the Maldivian state abides by these laws. The Maldivian state has established the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives as a national body according to the Paris Principles. Given that the three branches of the Maldivian state protect and promote human rights, the members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, have shown bias, undermined the commission’s credibility, been willfully negligent towards the progress the state has made and continues to make in [establishing] democracy and upholding the rule of law and human rights, and has been oblivious to those who commit terrorist acts against the people, state institutions and security forces, and acts that endanger peace and order, and undermine the state’s independence and sovereignty, and those who commit such acts. It is clear that the commission, by failing to rely on credible information and by preparing a false report and by disseminating this report, has acted unlawfully and encouraged acts that undermine the Maldives’ independence, sovereignty, constitutional system, and peace and order.

e) Fifth, state institutions must function according to societal truths and values, and with regard to the state’s capabilities and facilities that are available to it, and without spreading unlawful information that endangers the state, and without allowing room for unlawful acts, and by prioritizing prudent and peaceful solutions, and based on principles that bring out the best results. Although there are rights afforded to individuals, one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the national body on human rights (The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives) is to refrain from acts that undermine the nation and public interest. It is clear that the national body on human rights must function impartially and as a national institution according to the UN resolution passed in the 1993 Vienna Conference and according to the Paris Principles. The role of the national body on human rights, established within the state’s sovereign system, must be to promote human rights and to advise the government and other authorities on protecting human rights, and conducting awareness programs. Hence, such a national body must not overstep into the jurisdiction of any institution within the executive power or that of the security forces or the judiciary or the legislature. It is not legal to make a law in such a manner or interpret a law in such a manner. The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives is a body that listens to complaints by the citizens, and works to address such complaints, and interacts directly with the people. It is clear that for such an institution to act in ways that overlap with the mandate of other state institutions, in fact, undermines its own mandate.

f) Sixth, the national body on human rights must work within the sovereign legal system of the state, in the spirit of cooperation with the branches of the state and its institutions, without bias, to provide recommendations on matters concerning human rights and matters violating human rights, to review complaints of violations of human rights and to provide redress, to advise on bills protecting human rights and revisions for such laws, to assess the situation of human rights, to provide advice in such situations, and to conduct educational and awareness programs on human rights, or conduct such programs in association with other state offices, in order to promote and protect human rights.

Verdict

Whereas the Article 141 (b) of the Maldives Constitution clearly states that the highest authority for the administration of justice is the Maldives Supreme Court,
Whereas [the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives] has described steps taken by the Supreme Court, in its role as the guardian of the Maldives Constitution and laws, to uphold the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and to ensure justice without fear and prejudice, and according to the Islamic Shariah and laws, and to uphold the rule of law, as controlling the judiciary,

Whereas the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, in the subheading access to Justice in the report, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which was made public on September 16, 2014, has mislead [the public] on the jurisdiction of the highest authority in the administration of justice, the Supreme Court, and on the legal procedures used by the courts in conducting trials, and on the procedures used by courts in providing information

Whereas the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives has prepared the abovementioned report, shared this report with parties in the Maldives and abroad, and whereas this report contains false information regarding the procedures accepted and followed by the courts,

Given that Article 145 (c) of the Maldives Constitution states that 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, and

Given Article 20 of the Maldives Judicature Act (22/2010) clearly states that the government, the parliament and the state institutions must obey and abide by the Supreme Court’s rulings

It is ruled that the statement made by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives which describes the previous, current and future work of the Supreme Court, acting in its role as the highest authority in the administration of justice, and according to the Maldives Constitution, relevant laws and international best practices, as controlling the judiciary, and disseminating information that is false and undermines trust in the judiciary via the above mentioned report to parties in the Maldives and abroad, is an act that contravenes Article 141, Article 145 (c), Article 299 (a) of the Maldives Constitution, and Article 20 (a) and (b) of Law no 22/2010 (Judicature Act)

Hence, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives is ordered to respect the Maldives Constitution and not to repeat such an act deliberately.

Further, given that the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, established under Article 189 (a) of the Maldives Constitution, similar to other state institutions, has no obligations other than those mandated by the Islamic Sharia, the Maldives Constitution and laws, international covenants the Maldives is party to, and part of the international covenants the Maldives is party to,

And given that the Maldives is a sovereign, independent, democratic republic based on the principles of Islam, and is a unitary state,

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, in conducting activities to promote and protect human rights, is ordered to:

  1. Act within the ambit of the Maldives Constitution and laws to ensure the full protection of the interests of Maldivian state and its citizens
  2. Ensure the commission does not in any manner disrupt the Maldivian citizen’s unity and homogeny
  3. Ensure the commission does not undermine peace, security, order, and age-old norms of behavior
  4. Ensure the commission does not overlap with and take over the responsibilities and mandate of other state institutions
  5. Ensure such activities are permitted in Maldivian society by the Maldives Constitution and its laws
  6. Ensure such activities are in line with the Maldivian faith, accepted societal norms, and good behavior
  7. Ensure such activities are based on policies compiled in light of credible research in line with the Maldivian faith, accepted societal norms, good behavior, the Maldivian Constitution and laws, and in a manner that protects national security, peace and unity, and with the full cooperation of other institutions of the Maldivian state
  8. In the event the commission has to work with foreign bodies, the commission, as an organ of the sovereign and independent Maldivian state, must follow procedures established by the state and work with the mediation of the relevant state institution
  9. Uphold the lawful government, ensure respect for the rule of law, and ensure such activities increase the citizens’ obedience to the rule of law
  10. Ensure such activities are free from political bias, and without the intention of furthering the interests of a specific party or to defame a specific party
  11. Ensure such activities do not encourage political, social and religious extremism, and do not facilitate hardship for the Maldives, and do not tarnish the Maldivian nation’s good reputation.
Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government defends Supreme Court’s HRCM ruling

A Supreme Court judgment that bars the human rights watchdog from communicating with foreign organization without oversight “clearly stresses” the commission’s independence, the Maldivian foreign ministry has said.

The 11-point guideline issued by the apex court, in a ruling that also found the a human rights assessment submitted by the watchdog to the UN unlawful, simply prescribes how the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives should operate within the law, the ministry said.

UN rights experts, the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and civil society groups have denounced the guideline as one that restricts the HRCM’s work and its right to share information freely with the UN.

But the foreign ministry said the guidelines “do no stipulate, in any specific terms, any restriction or limitation on the HRCM’s ability to submit reports to the UN or any other national or international organ in the future.”

The guideline was issued under controversial suomoto regulations that allow the Supreme Court to prosecute and pass judgment.

Point 7 of the guideline orders the commission to ensure “full cooperation” from other state institutions, while point 8 says the HRCM must communicate with foreign bodies according to procedures set by the state and through the relevant state institution.

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said the verdict was “completely unacceptable.” The guideline is “yet another example of the judiciary undermining human rights protection in the Maldives,” he said.

The UN Special Rapporteurs on independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, and on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst described the verdict as “an act of reprisal.”

The charges relate to a report the HRCM had submitted to the Universal Periodic Review, a process that studies the human rights record of all 193 UN member states with the aim of supporting and expanding the protection of human rights.

In the report, the HRCM had said the Supreme Court controlled and influenced the lower courts to the detriment of the Maldivian judiciary.

The apex court said the report was biased and undermined judicial independence and the Maldives constitution.

Defending the Supreme Court, the foreign ministry today said: “To suggest that the Supreme Court has, in this case, deliberately sought to curtail the activities of the HRCM, as a state institution appears to be a mischaracterization, in that the substance of the suomoto case is not concerned with the substance of the report prepared for the UPR, but issues concerning the compilation of that report.”

The Supreme Court judges, in fact, did take issue with the substance of the report, and also censured the HRCM for basing its assessment of the judiciary on reports written by Knaul, the International Commission of Jurists and advocacy group Transparency Maldives.

Then- Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, in September last year, suggested the HRCM should not cite Knaul as the judiciary had rejected her 2013 report on the judiciary.

The Supreme Court verdict, delivered eight months after the charges were first pressed, comes as the parliament prepares to appoint three new members to the HRCM as the five-year terms of three members are due to expire in August and September.

President Abdulla Yameen has nominated a former ruling party MP, the wife of a current ruling party MP and a senior official at the gender ministry for the soon to be vacant seats.

The government has meanwhile hired a law firm owned by Cherie Blair, the wife of UK’s former prime minister Tony Blair, to “strengthen the legislative framework of the government.” Omnia Strategy also specializes in public relations.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court verdict against HRCM ‘an act of reprisal,’ says UN experts

The Supreme Court’s ruling which imposes several restrictions on the Maldives human rights watchdog “is an act of reprisal” and contravenes both the Maldives’ Constitution and its international human rights obligations, two UN rights experts have said.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled a report submitted by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) to the UN in September last year as unlawful.

Judges set an 11-point guideline barring the commission from communicating with foreign bodies without oversight from “relevant state institutions.”

The guideline also orders the HRCM to ensure their activities are conducted with the full cooperation of other state institutions and that they “will not ruin the reputation of the Maldives.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision is purely and simply an act of reprisal against the Human Rights Commission for its legitimate cooperation with the UN human rights systems and its mechanisms,” said the UN special rapporteurs on the independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, and on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst.

Knaul and Forst have urged the Supreme Court to reconsider its verdict.

The Supreme Court had charged the HRCM with treason under controversial suomoto regulations that allow the court to prosecute and pass judgment.

The charges related to an HRCM report to the UN’s Universal Periodic Review, in which the commission said the Supreme Court controlled and influenced the lower courts to the detriment of the Maldives judiciary.

The UPR is a process that involves a review of the human rights records of all UN member states by other states, in order to improve the situation in all countries and address violations.

During a second hearing last year, the HRCM said its observations were based on reports by Knaul, the International Commission of Jurists and advocacy NGO Transparency Maldives.

Judges censured the commission then, saying the judiciary had rejected Knaul’s 2013 report as “invalid.”

Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed on Tuesday said the HRCM report was biased and undermined judicial independence in the Maldives.

Knaul and Forst said the Supreme Court verdict “is an undue interference into the independent work of the commission and their right to share information freely with the UN.”

The verdict is at attempt to strip the HRCM of its independence and “severely limit its constitutional prerogative to promote, as well as monitor and assess observance of, human rights in the country,” they said.

The Supreme Court has contravened the Maldives constitution which enshrines the independence of the Human Rights Commission, they added.

“While the judiciary is to decide matters before it without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, or threats, it is bound by the powers granted by the Constitution and the laws and must function in full compliance with the state’s international human rights obligations.”

Knaul and Forst said the government has not responded to an October 2014 letter they had written regarding the charges.

“We deeply regret that the government of the Maldives has failed to respond to this letter and urge the government to respond to the questions addressed in a timely manner.”

The main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party, civil society groups and lawyers have also condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling and said the court has infringed on the parliament’s mandate by “writing laws” for the HRCM.

In March last year, the court had sacked the Elections Commission’s president and vice-president when they criticized a 16-point electoral guideline issued by the court after it annulled the first round of presidential elections in September 2013.

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the anti-corruption watchdog was not authorized to suspend government contracts even if they suspected major corruption.

The president of the Anti – Corruption Commission at the time said the ruling rendered the ACC powerless to stop corruption.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court renders human rights watchdog toothless

The Supreme Court has declared a rights assessment submitted to the UN by the human rights watchdog as unlawful, and has issued an 11-point guideline barring the independent body from communicating with foreign organizations without government oversight.

Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed delivered a verdict today, eight months after the apex court charged the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) with treason.

He said the September 2014 report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council was biased, encouraged terrorists and undermined judicial independence in the Maldives.

In the report, the HRCM had said the Supreme Court controlled and influenced the lower courts to the detriment of the Maldivian judiciary.

Days after the report was publicised, the Supreme Court brought charges against the HRCM under controversial suomoto regulations that allow the apex court to prosecute and pass judgment.

The case had remained stalled after just two hearings.

The 11-point guideline issued today orders the HRCM to protect unity, peace and order, and uphold Maldivian norms, faith, etiquette and the rule of law.

The Supreme Court said the HRCM must not overstep its mandate and ordered the independent body to cooperate with government institutions, communicate with foreign bodies through the relevant government institutions, and protect the Maldives’ reputation.

The written verdict was not available at the time of going to press.

In March last year, the apex court sacked the Election Commission’s president and vice-president when they criticised a 16-point electoral guideline issued by the Supreme Court after annulling the first round of presidential elections in September 2013.

Judicial control

The HRCM’s two-page report submitted to the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) said: “The judicial system is controlled and influenced by the Supreme Court, weakening judicial powers vested in other superior courts and lower courts.”

The UPR studies the human rights record of all 193 UN member states and is aimed at supporting and expanding the protection of human rights.

The Maldives was first reviewed in 2010 and underwent a second inspection in May.

During the review in Geneva, countries across the world blasted the Maldives for the ‘politicisation of the judiciary’ and raised concern over the Supreme Court’s prosecution of the HRCM.

Several countries then recommended that the Maldives ensure impartiality and independence of the judiciary and provide training to judges.

The foreign ministry has deferred accepting or rejecting the recommendations, pending “national level consultation.” A decision will be communicated before the 30th session of the human rights council in September or October 2015.

Trial summary

At the second hearing on September 30, 2014, the HRCM had denied charges and said that the commission’s observations on the judiciary were based on reports by the UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul, the International Commission of Jurists and the national chapter of Transparency International.

Then-Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz said the judiciary had rejected Knaul’s report as invalid and reprimanded the HRCM for alleged failure to consult the Supreme Court in writing the UPR submission.

Faiz and Judge Muthasim Adnan were removed from the seven-member bench in December.

The HRCM in March said the Supreme Court’s suomoto case was the biggest challenge the watchdog has faced in its 11-year history.

The HRCM Act grants members immunity from prosecution in relation to acts carried out as part of the commission’s duties.

Today’s ruling comes as the parliament prepares to appoint three new members to the HRCM as the five-year terms of three members are due to expire in August.

The three members are HRCM president Mariyam Azra, vice-president Ahmed Tholal and member Jeehan Mahmood.

President Abdulla Yameen has nominated a former ruling party MP to the position. The opposition has accused the president of stacking independent commissions through the ruling-party controlled parliament.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Two judges in ex-president’s terrorism trial appointed to high court

Two criminal court judges who sentenced ex-president Mohamed Nasheed to 13 years in jail in a widely criticised trial have been appointed to the High Court today.

Judges Abdulla Didi and Sujau Usman took the oath of office at a surprise ceremony at the Supreme Court this morning.

Two seats on the nine-member bench have been vacant since the high court’s chief judge was demoted to the juvenile court in August, and another judge retired in February this year.

The appointment of new judges was stalled when the high court in October last year said the evaluation criteria was flawed.

But the Supreme Court on May 28 overturned the ruling, paving the way for Didi and Usman’s appointment.

The third judge in Nasheed’s terrorism trial was Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf. He was awarded a discounted flat in a newly built luxury apartment complex in Malé.

The former chief judge Ahmed Shareef was suspended in 2013, shortly after the high court suspended court proceedings against Nasheed on charges of arbitrarily detaining a judge during his tenure. The high court was reviewing the composition of the bench overseeing the trial.

The Prosecutor General’s Office in February withdrew the lesser charges of arbitrary detention and filed new terrorism charges against Nasheed at the criminal court.

Evaluation criteria

The high court, in an October 2014 ruling, ruled that the criteria on evaluating a candidate’s educational qualification and experience was flawed and ordered the Judicial Services Commission to amend the criteria.

The 100-point mark sheet awarded 35 points for education, 30 points for experience, 10 points for ethical conduct and 25 points for an interview.

All candidates were to be put to a secret vote in the order of the candidates who received the highest points. The first candidates who received a majority in the vote would be appointed.

In evaluating the educational qualifications, a candidate with a degree in Islamic Shariah or a degree in common law would receive 20 points. But a candidate with a combined degree in Islamic Shariah and common law would receive 25 points.

Candidates with a masters or a doctoral degree would receive an additional five points each.

The criteria appeared to grade candidates on the title of their degrees, the high court said. For example, an individual who had a degree in common law may have done the same number of modules on Islamic Shariah as a candidate who had a combined degree in Islamic Shariah and common law.

The high court noted an individual who had done a degree in common law or Islamic Shariah, and held a masters, would receive 25 points, the same as an individual who had just done a degree in Islamic Shariah and common law.

The evaluation criteria for qualification awarded 30 points for ten years of experience as a judge, meaning it did not differentiate between candidates who had served as a judge for ten years or 20 years.

The appellate court said judges must be awarded points proportionate to the number of years they had served as judges.

The high court also ruled that the JSC cannot hold a secret vote to select candidates arguing the procedure was not transparent.

The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the high court’s ruling

Flawed trial

Foreign governments and international bodies have expressed concern over Nasheed’s 19-day trial, noting he was not given adequate time to prepare defense, barred from calling defense witnesses, and at times, denied legal representation.

The UN special rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul said: “The speed of the proceedings combined with the lack of fairness in the procedures lead me to believe the outcome of the trial may have been pre-determined.”

Amnesty International said Nasheed’s sentencing “after a deeply flawed and politically motivated trial is a travesty of justice.”

The three judges who oversaw Nasheed’s trial also sentenced ex-defence minister Mohamed Nazim to 11 years in jail in a weapons smuggling charge.

The retired colonel said the weapons were planted at his home by rogue police officers on the orders of Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb.

Adeeb has denied the allegations.

Despite growing calls for Nasheed and Nazim’s release, President Abdulla Yameen said he has no constitutional authority to release the pair.

Nazim’s appeal at the high court is scheduled to begin on June 21.

Nasheed was unable to file an appeal after the criminal court delayed releasing required case documents within the shortened ten-day appeal period.

The government insists Nasheed can still file an appeal, but his lawyers say the law is silent on late appeals.

They argue that the Supreme Court in January has removed the high court’s discretionary powers to accept late appeals in the ruling that had shortened the 90-day appeal period to ten days.

Photo by Raajje TV

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court denies media reports on chief justice’s ill health

The Supreme Court has denied media reports of Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed suffering from ill health.

Several local media outlets had reported that Saeed was abruptly flown to Singapore on April 16 for emergency eye surgery. The court said the reports were “completely false”.

The apex court said in a statement yesterday that the chief justice will resume duties shortly after “a very successful treatment,” but did not reveal details.

Freedom of expression and press freedom should be exercised constructively and responsibly without infringing on the rights of others, the court said.

Saeed was appointed chief justice following the controversial removal of former Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain in December.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives judiciary hammered in UN human rights review

Countries across the world have blasted the Maldives for it’s politicized judiciary and expressed alarm over threats to journalists and human rights defenders at a UN periodic review of human rights in Geneva today.

The imprisonment of former president Mohamed Nasheed on terrorism charges was also noted with concern by Norway, Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the United States, Canada and Australia.

But many countries welcomed new anti-torture laws and laws protecting migrant worker and women’s rights in the Maldives, and applauded progress in healthcare and education.

The UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) comes amidst heightened international scrutiny of the Maldives over political turbulence triggered by Nasheed’s arrest in February. Hundreds were arrested this weekend in a 20,000 strong anti-government protest.

Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon said the Maldives is training and building capacity of judges, and said criticism of Nasheed’s trial had “mainly focused on the process and not the merits.”

Many countries also slammed the Maldives for the Supreme Court’s decision to try members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) for treason over a submission to the UPR.

Despite the strong criticism, the foreign ministry in a statement tonight said the human rights council had “praised Maldives for the tremendous progress it has achieved in the promotion and protection of human rights.”

Judicial reform

Expressing concern over a “lack of respect for the most basic principals of fair trial and due process” during Nasheed’s trial, Norway called on the Maldives to release the opposition leader immediately.

Germany noted a climate of growing fear in the Maldives due to increasing gang related violence, religious intolerance, and attacks and death threats faced by journalists, politicians and civil society groups.

The UK meanwhile called on the Maldives to ensure administration of justice is “fully consistent with international human rights standards” and take urgent action to protect journalists, NGOs and to investigate and prosecute individuals behind the threats.

The UK also expressed concern over arrests of opposition leaders during the mass antigovernment protest on May 1, and called for dialogue between the government and opposition parties.

Denmark noted irregularities and rushed processes in Nasheed’s trial, and recommended the “Maldives restore confidence in its legal system by ensuring the clear and unambiguous division of powers, including the indisputable independence of its judicial processes and judges.”

The United States urged the Maldives to end politically motivated prosecutions, including the Supreme Court’s prosecution of members of the human rights watchdog.

The US said it was concerned about fair trial guarantees and said Maldives must strengthen the independence of the judiciary by reforming the process by which the judicial watchdog – the Judicial Services Commission – selects and appoints judges.

Adding its voice to calls for Nasheed’s release, Canada said Maldives must reaffirm its commitment to democracy and rule of law, and institute an independent bar association.

Meanwhile, India said the judiciary must adhere to due process to maintain public trust and said the space for legitimate political dissent must be safeguarded.

Botswana, Brazil, Argentina, Slovenia, New Zealand, Ghana, Switzerland, Italy, Ireland, South Korea, Bangladesh, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Trinidad and Tobago, Kenya and France also spoke on the need for judicial reform.

International spotlight

Responding to criticism of Nasheed’s trial, foreign minister Dunya said the case “has highlighted the profound need to work together and strengthen oversight institutions, including the judiciary and the need to bring urgent reforms to the judiciary.”

She censured Nasheed for his decision not to seek an appeal, stating appellate courts were set in place to address shortcomings by the lower courts.

Nasheed’s lawyers had decided not to appeal after the criminal court failed to provide the necessary documentation within a shortened ten-day appeal period. The opposition leader has instead appealed to president Abdulla Yameen to reduce his sentence and release him through special procedures in the Clemency Act.

On the Supreme Court’s prosecution of the human rights commission, the Maldives representative in Geneva, Geela Ali, declined to comment, stating: “as the matter is yet to be decided, we deem it inappropriate to comment on the matter just yet.”

The charges were brought in September last year under new suo moto regulations that allow the Supreme Court to prosecute and pass judgment. The case is still pending.

Dunya said the Maldives had formulated a judicial sector strategic action plan with new benchmarks for increasing efficiency, effectiveness and public confidence in the judiciary.

“Almost everyone seems to have something to say, about what they think is good for the Maldives. As a result, every baby step that the Maldives takes is fiercely debated all over the world, including in the corridors of power in key capitals,” she said.

“It is easy to criticize, but we urge you to not only do that: invest in us, bring about meaningful change.”

She insisted Maldives’ institutions must have the space to grow organically, and said meaningful democratic change cannot be imposed. Change “can only be sustained if the change is locally owned, locally driven and locally shaped,” she said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court barred judges from penal code trainings

The Supreme Court barred judges and magistrates from attending trainings on the new penal code, Minivan News has learned.

The penal code was ratified a year ago and was set to come into force this month, but the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives has delayed its enactment by three months.

According to judges and lawyers, the Supreme Court denied permission for judges and magistrates to attend trainings conducted by the attorney general’s office and UNDP at a special legal sector resource center, which was set up last year to train law enforcement agencies, judges, lawyers and journalists on the new penal code.

“The penal code is a large, extensive document with criminal proceedings that is new to the Maldives. I wanted to attend but the Supreme Court wouldn’t give us permission,” a judge who wanted to remain anonymous said.

The existing penal code was adopted in 1968 and has been criticised as draconian, outdated and not in line with the democratic constitution of 2008.

Former Deputy Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem, who has trained 1099 individuals on the new penal code, said the legal resource center had invited all judges and magistrates, but “none of them attended the trainings.”

Shameem says the legal resource center could train all of the 186 judges and magistrates in the country within two weeks.

Lawyers have meanwhile expressed concern over judges’ capability in implementing the new penal code without the required trainings.

“The penal code has a whole new section on sentencing. It is completely different from procedures used before,” said Hassan Shiyam Mohamed, who advised a parliament committee that had drafted the new penal code.

“It is imperative that judges be trained on its application. We don’t want to see a situation where everyone else is more fluent in it than the judges. I really don’t understand the Supreme Court’s decision.”

The Department of Judicial Administration, which functions under the Supreme Court, says it is now planning a separate training for judges next month, but an official from the DJA said the apex court has not yet approved the trainings.

“There will be a seminar on the penal code for selected magistrates next month. The seminar will be headed by the Commonwealth,” he said.

The Supreme Court was unavailable for comment at the time of going to press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dhiggaru by-election brought forward to June 6

The Elections Commission has brought forward the by-election for the vacant parliament seat for the Dhiggaru constituency to June 6.

The commission previously scheduled the election for June 13 after ruling party MP Ahmed Nazim was found guilty of defrauding the state of MVR1.4 million (US$91,400).

The Supreme Court sentenced Nazim to 25 years in prison on April 6, overturning lower court rulings that dismissed the corruption charges against the former deputy speaker of parliament.

The ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) has invited interested candidates to seek the party’s ticket while the opposition alliance has said it will field a single candidate.

The opposition Maldivians Against Brutality coalition, made up of Adhaalath Party, Maldivian Democratic Party, and members of the Jumhooree Party, said they are holding discussions on fielding a single candidate against the PPM.

Adhaalath spokesperson Ali Zahir and a PPM member on the Meemu atoll council, Moosa Naseer, have expressed interest in standing for the vacant seat.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)