supreme court – Page 25 – Minivan News

Translation: September 15’s secret police report on election

This translation first appeared on Dhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission.

Shortly before midnight on 7 October 2013, four of the seven judges on the Maldives Supreme Court Bench put out a majority verdict annulling the first round of the 2013 Presidential Election held on 7 September 2013. The election was heralded as free, fair and largely free of errors by both local and international observers. The four judges ignored this consensus and, instead, chose to rely heavily on a ‘secret report’ compiled by a team of ‘forensic experts’ from the Maldives Police Service as the main evidence to support claims of Jumhooree Party, the complainant in the case. The report was so secret that it was not shared even with lawyers of the defendant, the Elections Commission, depriving them of the essential undeniable right of reply.

The following is a translation of another secret report the so-called expert forensic team compiled on 15 September 2013, the same day the Jumhooree Party filed its case at the Supreme Court. It was leaked on the internet yesterday. Although it is not the secret report which the Supreme Court ordered from the police after the case began, it is among the documents the court considered, and gives a taste of the quality of the greater report these experts later prepared. Hopefully, this latter report will also be soon made available for public perusal by a concerned citizen, as it should rightly be.

Read original (Dhivehi)

***************************************

Maldives Police Service,

Male’

Maldives

J2 (A)/2013/926

Issues noted in the Eligible Voters Registry used in first round of the presidential election & other problems with the election

Introduction

This report is [to] verify whether or not the allegations being made by political parties and political figures about validity of the results of the presidential election held on 7 September 2013 have any provable basis. Thus, this report compares and includes discrepancies noted in: the ‘Presidential Election 2013 — Eligible Voters List’ published by the Elections Commission on 30 May 2013 in the Government Gazette Vol.42, No.94 and “Amendments made to the Presidential Election 2013 Eligible Voters List published in Government Gazette on 30 May 2013 based on complaints received” that appeared in Government Gazette Vol.42, No.101 of 29 June 2013, and citizen information records kept at the Department of National Registration.

This report is based on multiple comparisons of a large number of records. Moreover, as the Elections Commissions has not even up to this day made public any list or registry of those of who voted in the presidential election on 7 September 2013, any discrepancies in the lists or registries used in the activity will enter this report also. However, it is believed that such an error-margin will be extremely slim. As this report regards the Department of National Registration Database as its main source, any incorrect information in it would also naturally enter this report. If the Elections Commission omitted listing the district when entering someone’s address, this report does not consider it as a problem or a discrepancy in address. Nor does it consider variations in spelling a person’s name as a discrepancy.

Points of Note:

In examining the Eligible Voters List, or Voter, and the records received from the Live Link of the Department of National Registration, several discrepancies were noted. They are listed below:

1865 people who were not given ID cards by the Department of National Registration were included in the Elections Commission’s Voter Registry. Information regarding those persons is included in Annex 01 of this Report

07 people whose information is not found in the Department of National Registration records were included in the Voter Registry. This information is included in Annex 02 of this report. One of these persons has made a Maldivian Passport.

588 who are believed to be now dead are included in the Elections Commission Registry. These dead people’s information is in Annex 03.

39 children who, according to the Department of National Registration Database, were not 18 years of age by 7 September 2013 were included (by modifying their date of birth) in the Elections Commission Registry. Annex 04 contains information on the children whose dates of birth are believed to have been altered.

Voter Registry shows 22 records of people who were on two ID card numbers. Annex 05 contains details of such people.

3568 people were noted whose Date of Birth on the Elections Commission Registry was different from that on their ID cards. Such persons are listed in Annex 06.

1627 people were noted as having discrepancies in their names. Their details are in Annex 07

10020 people’s records were found whose address on the National Registration Database did not match with their address in the Elections Commissions Registry. Their details are in Annex 08

747 people were found whose male female sex did not match[sic]. Their details are included in Annex 09. It is believed that the following problems arose as a result of mismatched sex:

According to the Registry gazetted by the Elections Commission a total of 5 women were registered to vote in Z.43.1.1 Lux Resort. It can be seen from the results announced on the Elections Commission website that 6 women voted in this box. Therefore, it must be believed that 1 woman more than was registered voted here.
502 women were registered to vote in Ballot Box No. NT.0.2 for Thaa Atoll in Male’. Results published on the Elections Commission website shows that 517 women voted in this box. Therefore, it is known that 15 women more than were registered voted here.
79 men were registered to vote in Box No.Z.50.1.1 placed on Robinson Club Maldives Resort. It is known from the results published on the Elections Commission website that 81 men voted here. Therefore, it is known that 2 men more than were registered voted here.
1 woman was registered to vote in Box No. Z.51.1.1 placed on Jumeirah Dhevanfushi Resort. It is known from the results published on the Elections Commission website that 2 women voted in this box. Therefore, 1 woman more than was registered voted in this box.

But, no votes were cast in these boxes more than the total numbers registered to vote there. Problems in votes cast in these boxes can be found in Annex 10. Detailed information about these will be found in Annex 10.

Below is a graph based on information listed above including the total number of problems found:

Problems that could arise with reference to points noted above:

In considering what has been noted in the Voter Registry, it is seen that there is some opportunity for fraud and rigging. Whether the problems in the Registry are intentional or otherwise, there is ample room to form the view that this could create opportunity for some people to vote illegally. Although the issues noted cannot be confirmed without first verifying them against the list checked at the polling booths, it must be accepted that even children under the age of 18 were allowed to vote. There is also room to say that people without a national identity card had the opportunity to create a card that is not valid and use it to vote. The view can also be formed that since there were 02 ID card numbers, one person could have had the opportunity to vote 02 times.

Other points of note:

Even though the Elections Commission acted according to Article 9 (a) of the General Elections Act which requires it to publish the Eligible Voters Registry in the Government Gazette at least 45 days (forty five days) prior to the election, it cannot be seen that the Commission published the information on their website as required. And, while second round of the 2013 Presidential Election is scheduled for 28 September 2013, the information still does not appear on the Elections Commission website.

Information has been received that Retired Judge Johan Griegler [sic] sent to the Maldives by the UN on request of the Elections Commission has not been given the opportunity to work there. Information has also been received that UN made a plea at the National Complaints Bureau to use his expertise. But, information has been received that he was not given the opportunity to work there that day.

It was also noted that even though Intelligence received information that the Elections Commission’s web server was hacked a few days before the election, and this information was relayed to the Commission, nothing was done about this for days. Even though it cannot be said for certain that information that could be ‘compromised’ was released as a result of hacked web server, it is believed that the server does contain such information. And, given that remote access has been granted to the server, it is certain that anyone who knows the password of that server will be able to access it from anywhere in the world. It was also discovered that it is this server which fetches the information and graphs needed for the Elections Commission website.

Because there is no one to take responsibility for the IT Department of the Elections Commission, that work has been assigned to Aminth Majda responsible for voter registration. That person works as Assistant Director of voter registration. Since most of the problems with this election is related to technology and registration, it is necessary for those investigating this to have information that it is one person responsible for these two things.

Although it was announced that arrangements were made for Indian citizens working in the Elections Commission to be absent from office on that day, information has been received that they were inside the premises on that day.

It was noted that, although percentage of voters was connected through net books assigned to those boxes through a web service, the link was broken at 15:00 on 7 September 2013 and could not be updated. Some people say that it was 71% of eligible voters who had voted at this stage. Information has also been received that, to ensure as many people as possible could vote in relation to this problem President of the Elections Commission Fuad Thowfeeq met with leaders of Jumhooree Party at 15:45 of that day. [The sentence structure is the Forensic Experts’, not mine.] And, the figure remained unchanged as voting continued until it showed a voter turnout of 88% at dawn. 2008 was a year when a lot of people voted, wanting a change. In comparison, unlike that time, various poll results showed that there were a large number of undecided voters. Even in the second round of the 2008 presidential election when citizens wanted a change, the voter turnout was 86%. Therefore, questions can be raised that there would be an 88% turnout this time.

While only one candidate, No.1 Qasim Ibrahim had a photo beside their name in the ballot papers used in the presidential election this time, some voters in Addu City saw ballot papers with photos of all candidates. In this regard, 4 people from Addu City have said they received this kind of ballot paper for voting.

Before the election, a person who played a lead role for a political party’s canpaign [sic] in Haa Dhaal Kulhudhuffushi printed some ballot papers similar to those used in this presidential election. This person and someone else were arrested in relation to this, and are being investigated.

Intelligence received reports sometime in the middle of this year that some people had got some ID cards printed abroad and were going to use it to voter registry using these cards, and investigations began to check the extent of truth in this information. Details about dead people were gathered through notes sent to various councils, and Intelligence began checking if any dead person had been included in the voter registry. But this work had to be brought to a halt temporarily because political actors and councils did not extend much co-operation to this work, Voter Registry was made public, media sources raised questions about this action by the police, and because of the extra work related to security of the election.

Some people are saying that when some people went to the voting stations to vote votes had already been cast in their names.

Proposals:

It is proposed that since investigations so far reveal problems with the Voter Registry, the Voters Lists used at polling stations on that day must be made public.
It is important that an audit be conducted of the server connected to the laptops at the polling booth, the server used in this work, and the system where the Voter Registry is kept.
Because some people are saying that when they arrived at the polling booth votes had already been cast in their names, this information must be collected. It is also the view that file information on how the records were updated on netbooks used must be checked, and how polling duty was changed must also be checked.
Given that the above noted problems can create more problems in the second round and could result in loss of peace, and given that even the work done up to now reveals a lot of problems that should not, relatively, exist in the voter registry, and because this creates the room for various parties to create doubts over the current preparations being done by the Elections Commission, and to ensure that people’s trust in elections preparations are upheld, and to seek public confidence in the results of the presidential election, it is the view that validity of the election must be proved to the public even if through government intervention.
When the points above are considered, there are problems that can affect the results of this presidential election. Therefore, it is the view that re-counting the vote boxes a second time will erase the doubts about the election in people’s hearts and reduce potential unrest related to this.
It is the view that because different people are saying that they saw different kinds of ballot papers, the ballot papers must be checked even if through random sampling.
It is proposed that in the future arrangements should be made to prevent foreign technicians from having access inside the Elections Commission. It is also proposed that, in circumstances where foreign technicians and experts are necessary, this information should be given to the public before people raise questions about something like that.
It cannot be accepted that registering voters through political parties is the best thing to do in the infancy of the Maldivian democracy. Therefore, it is the view that arrangements must be made so that everything to do with voter registration is done by the Elections Commission, and mechanisms established for easy registration.
This election has revealed the importance of recruiting staff to work at the polling stations well ahead of time so that it is assured such people are not affiliated with any political party.
It is the view that, to give people certainty and confidence, a security future [sic] be included in the ballot paper when they are being prepared. In circumstances where such a future [sic] is not included, and if a vote-related problem later arises where it has to be checked, then, if the only security futures [sic] it possesses are only futures [sic] that can be checked via a machine, it will be very time consuming and contains the potential for technical problems. It is the view, therefore, that some security futures [sic] visible to the naked eye be included in the ballot papers used in the election.

15 September 2013

Directorate of Intelligence

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Supreme Court majority judges “do not know what they are doing”: Nasheed

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has conducted a counter-assessment of figures highlighted as electoral fraud in the Supreme Court’s verdict annulling the results of the February 7 poll.

The Supreme Court in its controversial judgement issued last week based its findings on a secret police report compiled by the court itself, with the assistance of police from the Forensic Directorate Department. The court ruled the election had lacked legitimacy, as there were 5,623 irregularities in the voter registry. The secret report was not shown to the Elections Commission’s legal team.

Former President Nasheed – who finished the September 7 poll on top with 45.45 percent of the popular vote – told the press on Saturday that the party’s legal team had only noted 242 instances of possible fraudulent votes in the Supreme Court’s majority ruling, and 473 instances of potentially fraudulent votes in the dissenting view given by both Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain and Judge Abdulla Areef.

Nasheed argued that neither of these figures would have made any impact on the outcome of the presidential poll.

The final results of the poll held on September 7 showed Nasheed securing 95,224 votes. The Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) fielding Maldives former Dictator Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s half brother, Abdulla Yameen finishedin second position with 53,099 votes, 25.35 percent of the popular vote. Jumhoree Party (JP) finished at third position with 50,422 votes – 24.07 percent of the vote – while incumbent President Mohamed Waheed Hassan finished at the bottom with just 5.13 percent of the vote or 10,750 votes.

The former President stated that while the margin between the candidates who finished third and second place of the race stood at 2,677 votes, adding either of the figures to the total number of votes obtained by Gasim Ibrahim would not have changed the outcome.

Analysis of the figures

At a press conference today, the MDP emphasised that irregularities on the voter registry such as incorrect address details did not prove or correspond to an instance of a fraudulent vote.

The party tallied the instances of fraud which were explicitly noted in the rulings, and stated this figure was a fraction of the number needed to influence the outcome.

According to the majority ruling, seven underage voters had cast their ballot in the poll while the dissenting view by Chief Justice Faiz and Judge Areef noted 12 underage voters as having cast their ballots.

The majority ruling highlighted 18 supposedly deceased people who cast their vote in the poll, while the dissenting view claimed 14 dead people had cast their ballots.

Regarding the repetition of names in the voter list, the majority ruling highlighted that 225 entries in the list as repeated. However, the dissenting view by the two judges stated 174 entries were repeated in the voter list, while 22 entries were found to have been repeated when compared to the Department of National Registration (DNR)’s database.

The majority ruling noted that seven people without records in the DNR database had voted in the poll, while the dissenting view noted 207 such people had voted in the poll, out of which 96 had voted under National Identification Card (NIC) numbers that did not match with the number in the voter list.

Both the rulings noted that seven people were given the right to cast their vote, even when their names had not been present in the voting list, after their names were added to the list in handwriting.

“No legitimate, internationally acceptable grounds to annul the poll”

Nasheed said while the Supreme Court had no legitimate or internationally acceptable grounds to annul the poll, the party would still work with the Elections Commission’s decision and was preparing for a fresh election to be held on October 19.

“Even if we get a chance as small as that of the eye of a needle to compete in a presidential election, we are going to win it swiftly. Our opponents have admitted it. They simply cannot win over us through a vote of the people,” Nasheed said.

The former president criticised the election guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, which he described as the effective creation of new legislation made by the court. The mandate given by the constitution to the Supreme Court was to interpret laws, not to make new ones, he said.

“We have an elected parliament that is mandated to draft legislation. It is completely normal for Supreme Court to declare a part of this legislation illegitimate. But these guidelines, regardless of the name, are new legislation that instructs a state institution to follow a specific procedure. That is creating a law. They do not have that authority,” Nasheed stressed.

Nasheed said when the Supreme Court issued an order, this was required to be in pursuant to the law or the constitution, and if this was not the case, no institution was necessitated to follow those orders.

He also criticised the Supreme Court’s October 10 midnight ruling ordering the Elections Commission to compile a new voter registry, only days after releasing a judgement that ordered it to just amend the errors in the re-registration process.

“I think what is really happening here is that these four judges do not know what they are doing. I don’t think they are doing this purposely. As you know, these four have acquired very strange forms of degrees and maybe it is just that they do not have a clue about what they are doing,” Nasheed suggested.

“The current actions of the Supreme Court have now become acts carried out against the state. These four judges have become a threat to our national security. I call upon the security services to act immediately,” Nasheed said.

He expressed confidence that his political opponents would not succeed in their attempts to invalidate his candidacy, repeatedly claiming that this was “impossible”.

“People will not be surprised by attempts to bar me from contesting. I think the issue about candidacy is no longer newsworthy,” Nasheed said, when the question regarding his candidacy was asked.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Supreme Court issues ruling allowing reporting tools into polling stations

The Supreme Court has issued a new ruling Saturday (October 12) allowing reporters and observers to carry “necessary items to perform professional duties” into polling stations.

The ruling follows a media outcry over the apex court’s prohibition on carrying any item except a pen into polling stations, stipulated in its 16 point guidelines for the holding of new presidential elections on October 19. The Supreme Court annulled the first round of polls held on September 7, following a petition by the third-placed candidate, Gasim Ibrahim.

The latest statement, signed by Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, read: “[The Supreme Court] orders there not be any obstruction from any party to journalists and observers from using necessary objects to carry out their professional duties.”

“The purpose of the Supreme Court guidelines was to ensure elections proceed free and fairly [without intimidation, aggression, undue influence or corruption], not to impede professional duties of journalists and observers who act within the law,” the ruling read.

The Elections Commission welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling at a press conference on Saturday night, stating that the media will now be allowed to carry cameras and observers will be allowed to carry items necessary to monitor the election.

Elections Commissioner Fuwad Thowfeek said the commission was working around the clock to abide by the Supreme Court guidelines and ensure elections took place within the 12 day time-frame the Supreme Court had given to hold elections.

A midnight ruling from the Supreme Court on October 10 ordered the commission to disregard re-registration efforts for the annulled presidential elections, and restart the entire process with fingerprinted forms for all voters who wish to vote in a location other than their permanent address.

However, despite requiring fingerprinted forms, the Elections Commission said it did not have the capacity to verify if the forms carried the correct fingerprints.

“The Supreme Court verdict does not say we have to verify [fingerprints]. We don’t have the capacity to do that. No institution does. But if we notice a problem, we can take those particular forms to the police for investigation,” Elections Commission member Ali Mohamed Manik said.

The 24-hour period for re-registration expired at 4:30 pm today. Manik said the commission had re-registered 10,340 people by 7:30 pm, but expected to process over 60,000 forms by Sunday evening. 65,000 people re-registered to vote ahead of the annulled September 7 poll.

Manik said over 3000 re-registration tokens required processing at 7:30 pm, but said the commission would honor all tokens. Ten forms can be submitted on every token, but political parties are allowed to submit any number of forms on tokens.

“Some political parties have bundles of 10,000 to 15,000 forms,” Manik said. The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) said it had prepared over 33,000 forms.

Once the re-registration process is completed the voter registry will be publicised, and three representatives from each presidential candidate will be asked to approve voter lists for every single ballot box, Manik said.

The voter registry is expected to be ready by October 14, Monday, he added.

The Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) had criticised the EC’s 24 hour re-registration window as an act to “ridicule” the Supreme Court guidelines.

In response Thowfeek said: “We are not ridiculing anyone. We are working 24-hours to abide by the Supreme Court guidelines. No matter what time you come, whether its 12:00am, 1:00am, 2:00am, you will see everyone here is hard at work, they are staying up.”

The Elections Commission will be holding information sessions for media and observers on Sunday and Monday. The names of officials who will be acting on behalf of the elections commission on polling day will be sent ahead of the election for vetting to presidential candidates as per point eight of the Supreme Court guidelines, Thowfeek said.

Point eight states that all officials must be appointed with the knowledge of candidates or their representatives to ensure that all officials in voting districts are safe from allegations of supporting or representing a particular political ideology or candidate.

New ballot papers with improved security features are also being printed as per point 12 of the Supreme Court Guideline. The EC is printing 242,625 ballot papers, and is currently in discussion with the Maldives Police Services on transporting ballot papers to polling stations.

“We couldn’t do this by ourselves. All institutions are helping out. The police, the Department of National registration, the Civil Service Commission,” Manik said.

He also said that the commission was “positive” it would be able to ensure elections took place on October 19.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Voters, monitors, media banned from taking phones, cameras, files into polling area as per Supreme Court guidelines, advises EC

All eligible voters who wish to vote on Oct 19 somewhere other than their permanent address must re-register using the new fingerprint forms.

Voter re-registration will close at 4:30pm today. Forms are available at all island council offices, Addu City Council departments, diplomatic missions and at www.elections.gov.mv. In Malé forms will be accepted at the Elections Commission’s registration center on Handhuvaree Hingun.

Check your registration status online, or by SMSing 1414 ‘VIS ID#’, or call the hotline on the same number.

Voting will begin at 7:30am on Saturday, October 19 and polls will be closed at 4:00pm, the Elections Commission (EC) announced at a press conference last night. Those in the queue at 4:00pm will be allowed to vote, said EC Commissioner Fuwad Thowfeek.

Two ballot boxes will be placed in Sri Lanka and one each in India, Malaysia, Singapore and the United Kingdom.

The previous requirement for more than 100 voters to register for a ballot box to be kept overseas would not be enforced this time, Thowfeek said, adding that ballot boxes would be placed in resorts and industrial islands whether or not the registration exceeds 50 persons.

The re-registration deadline for persons voting outside their home islands is 4:30pm today, after the Supreme Court ordered the EC to restart the registration process in line with the court’s guidelines.

Thowfeek explained that while forms submitted on October 9-10 with fingerprints in accordance with the Supreme Court guidelines would be valid, re-registration forms processed before the annulled September 7 presidential election as well as for the postponed second round scheduled for September 28 would be invalid.

Among the 16-point guidelines imposed on the EC by the Supreme Court judgment annulling the first round of the presidential polls was a requirement to include fingerprints of persons submitting re-registration forms as well as the fingerprints of two witnesses, if the form was submitted by a third party.

“Registration by forms submitted in September have been invalidated now. So until registered, a person’s name will be under his or her permanent address [on the voter registry]. Until a person registers elsewhere they have to vote in the place of the permanent address,” Thowfeek said.

“We do accept that this is a very short period we are offering to citizens. But as you know, because of the Supreme Court verdict we cannot provide a long period for any process. The verdict states that the first round of the presidential election must be held before the 20th of this month.”

In line with the Supreme Court guidelines, Thowfeek said voters would not be allowed to take phones, handbags or any other item into the polling station, advising voters to keep phones at home.

“The Elections Commission and relevant authorities should make it illegal for any person (including officials) who enters the polling station to carry phones, handbags, files or any item (excluding pens) that could be considered to infringe upon the rights of candidates and ensure that no such action takes place,” reads point 10 of the Supreme Court guidelines.

To abide by the guideline, EC member Ali Mohamed Manik revealed that media monitors would not be allowed to bring cameras or phones into the polling station.

“We sincerely apologise to you for this because in the past monitors took cameras and phones but we have to abide by the [Supreme Court] judgment,” he said.

The EC was given legal advice recommending that “any persons” stated in the guideline included media monitors as well, Manik said.

As elections officials would not be allowed to carry phones either, Manik said a communications official would be stationed outside each polling place.

In addition to a communications official, a second official would be added to supervise the handing out of tokens.

Asked if the EC could provide assurances that the voter registry would not include underaged citizens or the deceased, Thowfeek explained that in line with the Supreme Court judgment, the main source of the registry would be the database at the Department of National Registration (DNR).

“The department is tasked with maintaining [records] of births and deaths. So if they are maintaining the list correctly, I believe it shouldn’t include the names of any deceased,” he said.

In the past, Thowfeek said, the EC sought lists from the DNR and island councils, which were cross-checked to compile the voter registry.

The DNR has provided regular access to its database as well as identity card (ID) photos for the EC, Thowfeek said, adding that the ID card photos would be used along with the voter lists at polling stations.

Regarding the recent resignation of EC member Ibrahim ‘Ogaru’ Waheed, Thowfeek said Waheed informed the commission that he was advised to resign by doctors as it was “not advisable to work in a stressful environment” due to his health.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Political parties launch last minute re-registration drive, ahead of 4:30pm deadline

All eligible voters who wish to vote on Oct 19 somewhere other than their permanent address must re-register using the new fingerprint forms.

Check your registration status online, or by SMSing 1414 ‘VIS ID#’, or call the hotline on the same number.

The Elections Commission has opened up a 24-hour re-registration window for all eligible voters, after the Supreme Court ordered the EC to disregard re-registration efforts for the annulled presidential elections, and restart the entire process with fingerprinted forms for all voters who wish to vote in a location other than their permanent address.

With the new ruling, the EC opened up a 24-hour window for fingerprinted re-registration starting at 4:30 pm on Friday, October 11 and closing at 4:30 pm on Saturday, October 12.

Political parties have started re-registration drives throughout the country with hundreds of volunteers working around the clock filling out forms, copying identification documents and submitting forms to the EC headquarters.

On October 7, the Supreme Court annulled the first round of presidential elections held on September 7 2013, citing electoral fraud, and ordered the EC to hold a revote by October 20. In its verdict, the apex court provided guidelines for the revote including fingerprinted re-registration forms.

However, with only 12 days for the new polls at the time of the verdict, and more than 65,000 registered to vote in locations different to their permanent address in the annulled first round, the EC said re-registration would only be required if a voter would be voting in a different location than that already registered for in the annulled vote.

But the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) filed a complaint at the Supreme Court on Thursday claiming the EC was not following the SC guidelines.

The Supreme Court then opened at midnight on October 10 and issued a second ruling, ordering the Elections Commission to disregard previous reregistration efforts and restart the entire elections re-registration efforts.

Read the 16 point Supreme Court guideline here.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

President Waheed withdraws from October 19 election

President Dr Mohamed Waheed has announced his withdrawal from the rerun of the 2013 presidential election scheduled for October 19, after polling held last month was annulled by the Supreme Court.

Waheed, who came in last place during the now defunct first round of polling held on September 7 with 5.13 percent of the popular vote, said he had taken his decision in the “greater interest”of the Maldives, citing concerns about the integrity of the independent Elections Commission (EC).

“The court found serious flaws with the election register and considered other allegations of irregularities,” stated the President’s Office yesterday (October 11).

Despite both local and international observers praising the September 7 polls and the conduct of the Maldives’ EC, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Jumhoree Party (JP) – whose candidate MP Gasim Ibrahim finished narrowly in third place with 24.07 percent of ballots cast – by ordering a rerun of last month’s poll in its entirety.

Subsequent Supreme Court rulings have since overturned the Election Commission by ordering it to give candidates the choice whether to stay on the ballot paper or withdraw from the election, as well as demanding the entire elections re-registration process be restarted less than 10 days before polling.

While Dr Waheed has stood down from contesting the election rerun, the President’s Office said he would continue with his duties until his term expires on November 11, when the constitution requires a new head of state to be sworn in.

“Disputes arising out of the first round have caused serious disagreements among the political parties, the Elections Commission and the Supreme Court. During the remaining time, the President will do his best to maintain peace and stability, to ensure the election process continues with greater fairness, and to steer the country through these difficult times,” read the statement.

“Although President Waheed scored the least number of votes in the first round, he continues to be highly respected for the calmness with which he has managed the country, and for maintaining peace and stability in the nation.”

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad was not responding to calls at time of press to clarify whether the incumbent would be lending his support to another candidate standing in the election.

President Waheed last month announced he would be backing Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) candidate Abdulla Yameen in the second round run-off vote that was scheduled for September 28. The run-off was delayed and later cancelled by the Supreme Court.

Yameen had finished in second place on the cancelled September 7 poll with 25.35 percent of the votes cast. He was scheduled to compete against Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) candidate former President Mohamed Nasheed, who secured 45.45 percent of the popular vote – falling short of the 51 percent needed to secure the presidency during the first round.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

US “deeply concerned” about legal actions potentially delaying Maldives’ October 19 election

New voters and voters who wish to vote from a location other than their home island must submit the NEW fingerprint re-registration form by 4:30pm Saturday October 12, in line with Thursday night’s Supreme Court ruling. People who re-registered prior to the Sept 7 election will need to complete the process again, or may be unable to vote. Fingerprint forms submitted on Oct 9-10 will still be valid.

Forms are available at all island council offices, Addu City Council departments, party offices, diplomatic missions and at www.elections.gov.mv. In Malé forms will be accepted at the Elections Commission’s registration center on Handhuvaree Hingun.

Check your registration by SMSing 1414 ‘VIS ID#’, call the hotline on the same number, or visit http://elections.gov.mv/index2715.html

The US has said it is “deeply concerned” about continued legal actions “that could further delay the Maldivian presidential election”.

The Supreme Court opened at midnight on Thursday in response to a petition from the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), and ordered the Elections Commission to redo the entire voter re-registration process, despite previously ordering polls to be held before October 20.

Earlier in same day the PPM had sought to file another petition to bar former President Mohamed Nasheed from the polls on the grounds of him being “irreligious” and critical of the judiciary, although this appeared to stall following dissent within the party.

“It is important that the [election] go forward unimpeded in a fair, inclusive and transparent way,” said Deputy Spokesperson for the US State Department, Marie Harf, in a statement.

“The basis of any democracy is for citizens to choose their government, for political differences to be decided at the ballot box in an environment free of violence and for election results to be respected,” the statement read.

“We continue to urge a peaceful political process that is inclusive of all candidates in order to ensure the Maldivian election that will meet international standards of an elected, legitimate democracy,” it concluded.

The statement followed UK Foreign Secretary William Hague’s urging of presidential candidates “to act in line with the interests of the people of Maldives”.

“It is imperative that there are no further delays and the elections be free, fair and inclusive, and that international observers are invited,” the Foreign Secretary said.

“Cynical attempt to delay election”: MDP

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has meanwhile begun the task of re-registering tens of thousands of voters, in line with the Supreme Court order. Re-registration is required for new voters or people wishing to vote at a location other than their home island, with almost 65,000 people re-registering in the annulled first round – almost 30 percent of the voter turnout.

At the same time the MDP condemned Thursday’s ruling, warning that it risked further delaying the elections.

“The MDP is extremely concerned that the Supreme Court is interfering in the electoral process for political reasons, issuing unconstitutional rulings and acting with impunity,” said the MDP in a statement.

“The MDP fears that the PPM is seeking to delay the elections and also disenfranchise overseas and resort-based voters, who will now likely have to re-register and who tend to vote overwhelmingly in favour of President Nasheed,” the party stated.

“This is a cynical attempt by the PPM and the Supreme Court to prevent elections from taking place next week,” said the party’s spokesperson, MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor.

“The PPM is running scared of the voters because they know they will lose a free and fair election., and the Supreme Court is facilitating the subversion of the democratic process.”

The party reaffirmed its confidence in the embattled Elections Commission, and called on security forces and the international community to ensure the Commission’s protection.

PPM MP Ahmed Nihan meanwhile told Minivan News last night that he believed the Supreme Court’s latest order would mean additional delays to the voting, currently scheduled for October 19.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Week in review: October 5 – 12

After nearly two weeks of deliberations, the Maldives Supreme Court this week chose to annul the first round of the presidential election. The 4 to 3 decision hinged on a police report – seen only by the judges – that suggested 5,600 ineligible votes had been cast.

In the dissenting opinion, three of the seven member bench questioned the credibility of the evidence presented as well as questioning the court’s authority to rule on the case.

After consulting with government representatives on the repeated first round – scheduled for October 19 – in compliance with the court’s ruling, the EC was quickly told that it’s re-registration process had not followed the verdict.

The commission was ordered to re-start the entire process, putting the new polling date in doubt.

The latest court ruling came after the UK’s Foreign Secretary William Hague had stated as “imperative” that there were no further election delays. The week had begun with the UN Security Council being warned that democratic gains were “under threat” in the Maldives.

The Security Council was briefed on the growing instability in the country, an impression that will not have been altered by further signs of tension within the MNDF this week. More suspensions followed the circulation of a ‘letter of concern’ by senior officers last week.

Online speculation forced prominent lawyer Shaaheen Hameed and Defence Minister Retired Colonel Mohamed Nazim to deny rumours of an impending military takeover.

The Maldives Democracy Network, alongside the International Federation of Human Rights, were the first NGO’s to condemn the Supreme Court’s verdict – calling the decision “materially baseless”.

The decision was quickly followed by attempts from certain political and civil society representatives to bar presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed from subsequent polls – a move condemned by incumbent President Dr Mohamed Waheed.

Waheed himself received a stern rebuke from Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird’s office after complaining about the treatment of his own foreign minister at the recent CMAG meeting.

Nasheed and his Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) chose to interpret the first round’s annulment and the setting of a new date as a “huge victory”, bringing to an end its eleven consecutive nights of protest – during which 65 people were arrested.

Meanwhile, his political opponents began their campaigns with talk of fielding a single candidate in the (new) first round.

Campaigning on Jumhooree Party candidate Gasim Ibrahim’s Sun Island resort seems to have been continuous, with employees revealing details of multiple dismissals based on political affiliation.

The Prosecutor General’s Office assured the EC that it would receive full protection after it received a complaint regarding the behaviour of security services last month.

The failure of the police to stop an arson attack that destroyed MDP aligned Raajje TV this week – despite having been forewarned – brought stinging criticism from Reporters Without Borders.

The station was able to return to air with donated equipment just hours after the attack, whilst military officers were stationed outside all other media outlets.

The intimidation of civil society groups in recent weeks prompted concern from both the Maldives Human Rights Commission as well as Transparency International, whose Maldivian chapter has received threats as well as promises of investigation from the government.

Local NGO Advocating the Rights of Children (ARC) told Minivan News this week of its concern that child protection commitments undertaken by successive Maldivian governments remain “inadequate”.

Finally, the Maldives Monetary Authority’s quarterly bulletin showed that a shortfall in expected revenue, coupled with increased recurrent expenditure had caused the government’s finances to further deteriorate.

One potential source of additional revenue appeared to have been found this week as the government announced it would be sell shares in the state-owned Maldives Airports Company Limited – the current operator of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: Maldives’ judiciary an impediment to democratic consolidation

This article first appeared on Dhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission.

In September 2003, 30-year dictator Maumoon Abdul Gayoom declared a state of emergency after the dictatorships guards killed an inmate named Evan Naseem in Maafushi jail. Security services on duty resorted to the use of firearms to defuse the revolt, killing three others and injuring 17.

The riots that erupted forced Gayoom to initiate a reform agenda. The security forces and the judiciary came to the forefront of the discourse on democratic transition. The constitutional assembly, which proposed democratic restructuring of the system of governance and the report published by legal expert Professor Paul Robinson in 2004, highlighted these reforms needed for the criminal justice system. Professor Robinson concluded that “the reforms needed [for the Maldivian judiciary] are wide-ranging, and that without dramatic change the system and its public reputation are likely to deteriorate further.”

The Constitution ratified in August 2008, which paved way for the first democratic elections won by Mohamed Nasheed in October that year, consisted of a mechanism to re-appoint sitting judges during the interim period from August 2008 to 2010 and ensure judicial independence for the first time in Maldives’ history.

During the interim period, in accordance with sub-article (b) of Article 285 of the Constitution, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) was mandated to ascertain whether all sitting judges possess mandatory characteristics and standards prescribed under Article 149. Aishath Velezinee, former JSC member appointed by Nasheed, who publicly spoke out about JSC’s failures, claims that judges appointed during Gayoom’s regime secured their positions on the bench through a “Failed Silent Coup” in 2010 which subverted the Constitutional processes to re-appoint judges. In January 2011, her criticism of the manipulation of the Constitution by judicial actors made her the victim of a knife attack.

The interim Supreme Court judges, who were also subject to Article 285, wrote to the Nasheed administration as early as June 2010, declaring that they would permanently remain on the bench. Velezinee recalled the appointments to the Supreme Court as a “grave blunder.” The JSC defied Article 285, declaring it “symbolic” and swore-in all sitting judges, securing their tenure for life. A report published by the International Commission of Jurists in February 2011, also raises concerns about “the politicisation of the judicial vetting process.”

Coup to undo democratic gains

The first democratically elected government of Nasheed was forcefully brought to an end on 7 February 2012 by a televised coup d’état, led by loyalists of dictator Gayoom’s regime, and facilitated by Nasheed’s deputy Mohamed Waheed. The international community was quick to recognise the post-coup government headed by Waheed. A Commission of National Inquiry [CoNI] backed by the Commonwealth declared the chaotic transfer of power “lawful”.

The CoNI report published at the end of August 2012 was heavily criticised by the MDP, and with good reason, claiming that the inquiry selectively ignored evidence that did not fit its contrived conclusion.

International legal experts also echoed MDP’s concerns with regard to the report. The MDP, however, accepted the report with reservations as it acknowledged police brutality on 6, 7, and 8 February 2012. To date its recommendations regarding police brutality have not been implemented, resulting in impunity for Special Operations officers who were involved in the violent crackdown in early February 2012.

During the onset of the political turmoil, MDP maintained that elections should be held that same year, without letting the post-coup regime “entrench itself.” International community supported calls for an early election in 2012, although Waheed’s administration stated that “earliest an election could be held under the Maldivian constitution was July 2013.”

In July 2012, MDP’s presidential candidate Nasheed was prosecuted for the arrest of chief judge of the Criminal Court, whom the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) failed to take any action against despite his prior criminal record and misconduct in 2011.

Nasheed also faced proceedings against him at the Civil Court over allegations of defamation made against him by dictator-loyalists Minister of Defence Mohamed Nazim and Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz who led Nasheeds ouster. Over 20 MDP parliamentarians and some 800 active members and supporters were also subjected to various politically motivated criminal proceedings against them. In hindsight, the period leading up to elections was used by the post-coup regime to create shock and awe among the electorate, characterised by manufactured incidents and political persecution of MDP supporters in order to dissuade them from taking part in political activity and deflect attention away from the disputed legitimacy of the regime.

The juridical system continues to act as the means by which the regime achieves these ends under a democratic façade. Without a constitutional mandate to regulate lawyers, the Supreme Court issued a resolution for all practicing lawyers and prosecutors in April 2012. The resolution restricted lawyers’ freedom of expression, ordering that lawyers shall not discuss or criticise judicial proceedings or judges.

Lawyers were pressured to sign the resolution since the courts refused right of audience to those who didn’t. Ahmed Abdul Afeef who was part of Nasheed’s legal team was not able to represent him in court since he had protested the resolution and remained without signing it.

The muzzling of lawyers didn’t end there; Abdullah Haseen who represents a huge number of pro-democracy protestors was suspended for appearing on a TV show on Raajje TV disseminating information of the law. Although there is no legislation that prohibits sketching inside the courthouse, a lawyer named Shafaz Wajeeh was fined by the Supreme Court for his sketch. Lawyer and MDP parliamentarian Imthiyaz Fahmy is currently being prosecuted for contempt of court due to remarks he has made against the judiciary, although his comments are in line with international bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Nasheeds prosecution further revealed the state of Maldives’ judiciary to the international community. Trial observer Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh from Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales noted in her report that the panel of judges in the Hulhumale Magistrates’ Court was “cherry-picked for their likelihood to convict by a highly politicised JSC.”

The 2012 report by United Nations Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul detailed the crisis Maldives’ criminal justice system is faced with. The report expressed concerns over the “politicised and inadequate” JSC, noting that “the concept of independence of the judiciary has been misconstrued and misinterpreted in the Maldives, including amongst judicial actors” to benefit judges, enabling a culture of unaccountability. The UN Special Rapporteur also questioned legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrates’ Court since it contravened the Judicature Act 2010 and was declared invalid by a parliamentary oversight committee in November 2012.

The selective manner in which the JSC has taken disciplinary measures against judges suggests that the judicial watchdog refrains from taking action where it suits its political needs to shield loyalists of the former regime. In 2009, then Chief Judge of the High Court was removed from his position, and the JSC suspended a Civil Court judge for sexual misconduct. In 2013, a Criminal Court judge was suspended for sexually harassing a public prosecutor and Chief Judge of the High Court who was hearing Nasheeds appeals was also suspended.

However, it has not occurred to the JSC to take any form of action against Justice Ali Hameed of the Supreme Court whose scandalous escapade in Colombo with three prostitutes have become public knowledge with leaked video footage of him doing the deed. The Bar Association of Maldives called for the immediate suspension of Justice Hameed back in July 2012. JSC’s inconsistency in penalizing Justice Hameed is left unscathed so he can sit in the Supreme Court hearing the motions filed by Qasim Ibrahim who has close family ties to Gayoom’s family. It is also worth remembering the motion filed by Gayoom’s half-brother Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom at the Supreme Court.

Ballots to restore democracy

One of many gigantic posters of incumbent Mohamed Waheed put up across Male' ahead of 7 September polls. Waheed got 5%. Photo: Aznym

One of many gigantic posters of incumbent Mohamed Waheed put up across Male’ ahead of 7 September polls. Waheed got 5%. Photo: Aznym

February this year, the Elections Commission of the Maldives (EC) announced the presidential election to be held on 7 September 2013. On 28 July 2013 the EC officially announced the order of the candidates on the ballot paper, after approving the candidacy of all four candidates; Qasim Ibrahim with his Jumhooree Party (JP) and Islamist party Adhaalath (AP) coalition; Dr Waheed, independent, incumbent president, endorsed then, by Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP); Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom from the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) in a coalition with Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA); and Nasheed from Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Foreign and local observers such as the Commonwealth, the European Union, Transparency Maldives, Human Rights Commission of the Maldives declared that the first round of polls were “peaceful and inclusive” with a markedly high voter turnout of 88%. Transparency Maldives, which observed the election across the country, stated “none of the incidents reported on Election Day would have a “material impact on the outcome of the election”.

The chair of the Commonwealth observer group, former Prime Minister of Malta Dr. Lawrence Gonzi stated, “the vote count at the polling station was highly transparent with media monitors, party observers, and national and international observers able to scrutinize the process closely.”

In accordance with sub-article (a) of Article 111 of the Constitution and sub-article (a) of Article 19 of the Presidential Elections Act 2008, the EC began preparations for the presidential election’s runoff as none of the four candidates secured 50% of the votes; Nasheed had 45%, Waheed an embarrassing 5% and Qasim who had 24% came closely behind Abdul-Gayoom who secured 25%. The third place JP coalition refused to accept the first round of elections, and filed a motion at the Supreme Court requesting annulment of first round of polls. The JP also filed a motion at the High Court, requesting the Court to release the voters’ list.

JP produced three documents as evidence for their motion at the High Court, which indicated three lists of alleged discrepancies in the voters’ registry. Out of the first list that JP claimed consisted of deceased people who appeared on the registry, only seven were found on the original voters’ registry, and five were found to be alive. The other list consisted of allegedly repeated names of eligible voters. The EC’s legal counsel later proved in court that these were not repeated names but in reality different people with different national identification numbers and dates of birth. The third list consisted of people who were on Male Municipality’s Special Register who have mailing addresses registered in the capital. The High Court decided that there was no evidence of fraudulent activity with regard to the motion. However, it allowed supervised viewing of the electoral registry.

Supreme tyranny of the electoral process

Protests near the Supreme Court in Male' as it deliberated JP's case to annul 7 September election Photo: Aznym

Protests near the Supreme Court in Male’ as it deliberated JP’s case to annul 7 September election Photo: Aznym

Article 172 of the Constitution indicates that the High Court has the appellate jurisdiction for electoral motions, while Article 113 states the Supreme Court shall have final jurisdiction over such motions. Regardless, JP filed their motion directly at the apex court. MDP, the Attorney General (AG) and PPM made inter-partes claims to the motion, with PPM supporting JP’s claim and with the AG calling for the Court to order the Prosecutor General and Maldives Police Service (MPS) to investigate the alleged “irregularities” in the electoral registry.

The request by the AG is contrary to electoral laws and the Maldives Constitution, which clearly outlines the forum and mechanism to investigate and adjudicate on disputed results of an election. Sub-article (b) of Article 64 of the Elections Act 2008 states that if electoral laws have been violated, only the EC has the legal authority to initiate criminal proceedings through the Prosecutor General. Article 62 stipulates that the electoral complaints mechanism shall be established by the EC, and if a party is not satisfied with the recourse given by the complaints bureau, he or she may file a case at the High Court in accordance with sub-article (a) of Article 64.

The EC’s lawyer, former AG Husnu Al Suood noted an astounding lack of evidence to back JP’s claims. Suood also claimed that any delay could result in a constitutional void, citing US Supreme Court case Bush v. Al Gore 2000. MDP’s lawyers Hisaan Hussein and Hassan Latheef expressed concern at the lack of substantial evidence to claim electoral fraud, and stated that JP had not submitted complaints to the EC regarding the registry when the EC had publicly requested for complaints with regard to the publicized list of eligible voters.

JP’s lawyer and its presidential candidate Qasim’s running mate Hassan Saeed stated that the JP had thirteen reasons for annulment, reiterating claims made at the High Court. At the proceedings Saeed requested that; the security services oversee a fresh round of elections after nullifying the first round and for the Court to issue an injunction halting the EC’s work to hold the runoff dated 28 September 2013. The AG Azima Shakoor echoed JP’s criticism over the EC, but refrained from vocally supporting an annulment. The international best practice where either a public prosecutor or state attorney does not support actions of a state institution would be to refrain from commenting.

It is of importance to note such procedural irregularities that took place during the proceedings for this extraordinary motion. Despite the case being deemed a constitutional matter by the Supreme Court, and anonymous witnesses whose identities are protected by courts are only very rarely admitted in serious criminal cases, the apex court acted as a court of first-instance, admitting 14 witnesses submitted by JP who gave their testimonies in secrecy. Out of the three witnesses submitted by the EC, only one was admitted.

The AG also withheld certain evidence and this was left unquestioned by the Court. The AG’s office requested to submit a police intelligence report as “confidential” evidence – solely submitted as evidence to the Court’s Bench. The Chief Justice responded on behalf of the Bench, inquiring whether the intelligence report (or at least parts relevant) should be disclosed to the EC since their lawyers requested it. In her response to the Chief Justice, the AG stated that she will not submit the police intelligence report if the contents of the report would be disclosed to the EC.

“Where is my vote?”

Protesters near Supreme Court hold up cartoons making fun of disgraced Justice Ali Hameed Photo: Aznym

Protesters near Supreme Court hold up cartoons making fun of disgraced Justice Ali Hameed Photo: Aznym

At approximately 8:00 pm on 23 September 2013, four justices from the apex court signed and issued a stay order indefinitely postponing the runoff election until the court reaches a verdict. After the issuance of the stay order, the Commonwealth, European Union, Transparency Maldives, Human Rights Commission of Maldives, the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, Russia, and India all expressed concern over the postponement of the second round, calling Maldivian authorities to hold the second round according to the timescales stipulated under the Maldivian constitution.

At the proceedings the next day, the Supreme Court ejected and suspended lawyers Suood representing the EC, Hussein and Latheef representing MDP as a third party to the case, claiming that they were in contempt of court for their comments on social media regarding the Court’s stay order. Subsequently the MDP revoked its inter-partes claim to the case, claiming that the Court cannot guarantee the rights of over 95,000 of its supporters.

MDP’s chairperson Moosa Manik sent an open letter to the Chief Justice, criticizing the apex court’s contravention of the Constitution by denying fundamental right of reply and issuing a stay order indefinitely suspending sub-article (a) of Article 111 of the Constitution. The chairperson also called on the Chief Justice to restrain the Court to the “legal ambit of the Constitution” and “uphold Article 8 of the Constitution, which states that all powers of the State shall be exercised in accordance with the Constitution.”

After weeks of countrywide protests against indefinite postponement of the runoff election, the four Justices; Abdullah Saeed, Ali Hameed, Adam Mohamed Abdullah and Ahmed Abdullah Didi who infamously legitimised the Hulhumale Magistrates’ Court earlier this year, also issued the stay order halting elections, and on 7 October 2013 decided to annul the first round of elections held on 7 September 2013. Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justices Abdullah Areef and Ahmed Muthasim Adnan gave dissenting judgments, which claimed that the Court has adjudicated based on “inadmissible evidence” which the EC, the respondent in the motion, was not privy to, and questioned the Court’s jurisdiction in accepting the motion prior to the High Court.

The confrontations the judiciary continue to have with the legislature and executive from 2008 to present day is proof that elements within the Maldives’ judiciary is adamant on holding onto the power structures that existed during the former dictator Gayoom’s regime. The dregs of dictatorship continue to impede realisation of democratic governance in Maldives as envisioned in the Constitution.

The final chance to consolidate democracy through universal suffrage is at risk due to justices in the Supreme Court who have assumed supreme powers unto themselves, in order to benefit those politicians who unequivocally support their tenure, and are against overhauling or reforming the judiciary.

Mushfique Mohamed is a former Public Prosecutor and a member of MDP’s Electoral Complaints Committee. He has an LLB & a MScEcon in Post-colonial Politics from Aberystwyth University.

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)