Tag: supreme court

Politicians line up to replace jailed MP

Would-be candidates are already setting out their stalls for the parliamentary by-election in Meemu atoll Dhiggaru after the seat’s previous incumbent was jailed for 25 years yesterday.

Ruling party MP Ahmed Nazim, a former deputy speaker of parliament, was found guilty on Monday of defrauding the state of MVR 1.4 million (US $91,400) and sentenced to 25 years.

Members of both the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) and the opposition have expressed an interest in replacing him in the Majlis (parliament).

Among these are Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) member and Meemu atoll Muli island councillor Ibrahim Zaki, ruling party member and Meemu atoll councilor Moosa Naseer, and Adhaalath Party spokesperson Ali Zahir.

“I have decided to run for Dhihgaru constituency and I will apply as soon as the elections commission gives notice,” said Ali Zahir.

Elections must be held to fill parliamentary vacancies within 60 days under the constitution.

Meanwhile, the MDP has condemned Nazim’s conviction, saying several aspects of the process violated his rights.

“The lower court and the High Court threw out the case. So the state had appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. But instead the Supreme Court ruled on the case,” said MDP MP and spokesperson Imthiyaz Fahmy.

“So literally Nazim did not have a chance to defend himself,” Imthiyaz added.

He noted that former defence minister Mohamed Nazim, accused of plotting to assassinate President Abdulla Yameen, and ex-president Mohamed Nasheed, accused of terrorism over the arrest of a judge, received shorter sentences than Ahmed Nazim.

“[They] were charged with more serious crimes. So I don’t see the fairness in this conviction,” he said.

“It seems that the courts had all ruled in favor of Nazim when he was in favor with the government. But after his spat with [Tourism Minister Ahmed] Adeeb, the courts had turned against him,” Imthiyaz said.

Nazim, an ex-deputy speaker of parliament, was found guilty of defrauding the state by submitting bids on behalf of non-existent companies to supply 15,000 national flags to the now-defunct atolls ministry.

He faces three more outstanding corruption charges.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government hands discounted flats to judges, commission heads

The government has awarded luxury flats at discount prices to Supreme Court judges and four heads of independent bodies including the Anti-Corruption Commission in what it calls an attempt to “ensure their integrity”.

However, the opposition has condemned the distribution as a “government effort to enslave independent institutions”.

The government was handed 10 flats in the newly built Rehendi Residency, constructed by FW Construction in Male’. The housing ministry then offered the semi-finished apartments for MVR 1.6m (US $103,761), much lower than the market price, to the chosen individuals.

Hassan Lutfee, president of the Anti-Corruption Commission, confirmed to Minivan News he had signed a contract to buy one of the apartments at the discounted price.

A former owner of one of the apartments not awarded to the government told Haveeru he had bought his apartment for MVR 2m (US $129,000).

The government also waived the six per cent interest charged to other flat buyers on their loans, though the prosecutor general said he had requested to pay the normal rate.

According to the local media, the flats were awarded to Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, Supreme Court judges Ahmed Abdulla Didi, Adam Mohamed Abdulla, Abdulla Areef and Ali Hameed, Criminal Court Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf and Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin.

Apartments were also allotted to Commissioner General of Taxation Yazeed Mohamed and Information Commissioner Abdul Azeez Jamal Abu-Bakr. Not all the recipients have yet signed contracts to buy the flats.

Co-chair of the Economic Council Ahmed Adeeb told a press conference on Wednesday that the apartments were awarded to “ensure the integrity of independent institutions”.

“The flats were not handed out. The recipients have to pay for them. This will result in ensured integrity of independent institutions and moreover it will strengthen the state,” he said.

However, the opposition parties accused the government of trying to “enslave” the judiciary and independent institutions.

“This clearly is corruption. The constitution clearly states that no benefits can be given to members of independent institutions without parliament’s approval,” said MP Ali Hussain of the opposition Jumhoory Party.

“The fact that the flats were given personally to the heads of the institution and not [linked to] the post is outrageous.”

Article 102 of the constitution states that members of the judiciary and independent commissions “shall be paid such salary and allowances as determined by the People’s Majlis [parliament]”. However, parliament was not involved in allotting the apartments.

Muhathaz, the prosecutor general, told Minivan News he does not think the awards involve corruption.

“In my opinion the awarding of the flats is not unconstitutional. But I personally believe that it would have been better if it was awarded to the prosecutor general and not to me,” he said.

Information Commissioner Jamal said the flats were given to help the judges and institution heads live in a secure building, and dismissed any idea of government influence.

“I assure the people that I will always act professionally and within the bounds of the constitution and the laws,” he said.

The prosecutor general receives a monthly salary and allowances of MVR 57,500 (US $3,741), while the anti-corruption commission chief receives MVR 45,000 (US $2,927). Supreme court justices are paid MVR 71,000 ($4,619) and the chief justice MVR 73,125 ($4,757). They also receive extra benefits such as insurance.

A majority of civil servants are paid less than MVR 5,000 (US $325) a month.

The Supreme Court declined to comment on the issue, while the Housing Ministry refused to give information beyond what was discussed in the Economic Council press conference.

Judge Bari and Taxation Commissioner Yazeed were unavailable for comment at the time of going to press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives human rights watchdog under siege

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) has slammed the judiciary for compromising its independence, describing the Supreme Court’s suo moto proceedings over a submission to the UN Human Rights Council as the biggest challenge the watchdog has faced in its 11-year history.

In its 2014 annual report, the independent commission noted the Supreme Court and the Juvenile Court accused the HRCM of making false allegations in the Universal Periodic Review and a confidential report into a 15-year-old rape victim’s flogging sentence.

The Supreme Court and Juvenile Court’s charges affected the commission’s independence and ability to carry out its mandate, the report said.

The controversial suo moto regulations allow the Supreme Court to initiate proceedings, prosecute and pass judgment. The first case of its kind, in March 2014, saw the apex court sack the Elections Commission’s President and Vice President for contempt of court.

Jumhooree Party (JP) MP Ali Hussein said the judiciary’s “harassment of HRCM” was an indication of the “extraordinary levels of judicial activism in the country.”

“The judiciary is acting outside its boundaries, it is annulling laws, making laws, dismissing members of the independent commissions. The judiciary needs to be restrained immediately. But there is no way to hold them accountable.”

Judges must be educated and sensitised to human rights, fundamental norms and best practices in a democratic society, he continued.

However, lamenting President Abdulla Yameen’s decision to appoint disgraced Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed to the judicial watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Ali said judicial reform was only possible through a long hard people’s struggle.

Hameed was implicated in a series of sex tapes involving foreign women, but the police have closed the investigation citing non-cooperation from the judge, according to media reports. The JSC subsequently refused to take action against Hameed.

Meanwhile, parliamentary group leader of the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), Ahmed Nihan, said the People’s Majlis must play a key role in mediating the conflict between the HRCM and the judiciary to ensure the commission’s independence.

The majority leader described the dispute as “a teething trouble in a nascent democracy,” and said the HRCM must continue to exist as “a pillar of multi-party democracy.”

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) agreed the responsibility for ensuring HRCM’s independence rested with parliament, but said the PPM-dominated Majlis had no regard for the independence of the state’s watchdog bodies.

MDP MP Eva Abdulla also accused ruling party MPs of harassing human rights commissioners through the parliament.

The five members of the HRCM were summoned separately to the Majlis last week and questioned in a closed-door meeting regarding the commission’s statement condemning the Criminal Court’s 13-year sentence on former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The HRCM on March 14 expressed concern over apparent lack of due process in the opposition leader’s trial, and said the Criminal Court had failed to respond to a request to monitor court proceedings.

Eva also noted increasing threats against the HRCM, most recently that of a group of angry men on February 24 entered the commission’s officers and threatened to harm the five commissioners following a statement condemning the police’s mistreatment of Nasheed ahead of a hearing on February 23.

HRCM Vice President Ahmed Tholal meanwhile received threatening calls and messages after the police claimed he had called them “baagee” or traitor on February 22. The police have since withdrawn the claim.

The Supreme Court’s suo moto case is still pending “like a sword hanging over the HRCM,” Eva said.

The MP for Galholhu North also concurred with JP’s Ali Hussein, stating the judiciary should be held answerable through the JSC.

“We must end this judicial dictatorship. Within the People’s Majlis we must ensure the JSC fulfills its mandate. And above all, appoint qualified judges to the judiciary,” she said.

The HRCM in its report said the judiciary faced the most number of challenges in protecting human rights in 2014. The commission also expressed concern over the sudden dismissal of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan in December.

 

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judiciary continues futsal tournament in apparent defiance of Supreme Court

The staff of the judiciary appeared to defy a Supreme Court order on Thursday, continuing with an annual inter-court futsal tournament despite the an order requiring the apex court’s permission.

A Supreme Court circular, issued hours before the “Judiciary Cup 2015” began, said the judiciary’s staff could only form associations or clubs in accordance with a policy set by the Supreme Court and that their activities must be overseen by the Supreme Court-controlled Department of Judicial Administration (DJA).

However, participants of the tournament told Minivan News they went ahead after deciding that the circular would only apply to future activities.

A Civil Court staff who wished to remain anonymous said: “I don’t think we should get permission from the Supreme Court to hold a simple futsal tournament. They don’t hold control over our lives. “

The annual three-day tournament was last held in 2013 by the Criminal Court. The DJA was tasked with organising the 2014 tournament, but failed to do so.

The Drug Court voluntarily organised this year’s competition, the staff said.

A DJA Spokesperson declined to comment on the tournament, saying he would have to consult the Supreme Court before making any statements.

The tournament began on Thursday night without the DJA and Supreme Court’s participation. The final match between the Civil Court and the Drug Court will be played tonight.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court released a second circular ordering government and state offices to communicate directly with the Supreme Court on matters concerning the judiciary, instead of contacting the lower courts, separate judges and staff.

The circular also stated that an employee of the judiciary could only be appointed to any working committees with the explicit permission of the Supreme Court.

The apex court on February 12 also reduced the period during which an appeal could be filed at lower courts and tribunals from 90 and 60 days, respectively, to ten days.

The People’s Majlis in December dismissed Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan after the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) pushed through an amendment to the Judicature Act reducing the seven-member bench to five judges.

Shortly thereafter, Justice Abdulla Saeed was appointed Chief Justice.

In September 2014, the Supreme Court initiated suo moto proceedings against all five members of the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) in relation to its Universal Period Review (UPR) report to the UN Human Rights Council, which suggested the apex court’s control over the judiciary was undermining powers of lower courts.

“Supreme Court issued a circular ordering all state institutions not to communicate to individual courts regarding any information relating to the judiciary except through the Supreme Court. HRCM is facing difficulties in gathering information related to judiciary due to lack of cooperation,” the report stated.

In a comprehensive report on the Maldivian judiciary released in May 2013, UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, wrote that centralising administrative decisions in the hands of the Supreme Court “has undoubtedly contributed to the strong impression that lower courts are excluded from the administration of justice and decision-making processes.”

The Maldives representative to the UNHRC subsequently accused the special rapporteur of undermining the sovereignty of the country.


Related to this story

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

Supreme Court slams HRCM for basing rights assessment on “rejected” UN rapporteur findings

Criminal cases in PG leadership absence unconstitutional, says Drug Court judge

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court halts trials from February 15-19 for administrative overhaul

The Civil Court will halt all trials from February 15 to 19 in order to re-organise the court’s divisions and to settle other administrative matters as ordered by the Supreme Court circular of January 8.

Although all trials will come to a stop, the court will continue to accept new cases said a statement on the court’s website.

The statement came with a work plan which allocates particular works for every day in the time period including evaluation of issues in the sections, refurnishing, reallocation of responsibilities, and the redesigning of forms and other documentation.

These changes yesterday prompted the presiding judge in former President Mohamed Nasheed’s case against the Judicial Service Commission to announce:

“I cannot assure you that I will be sitting on this appeal after the said changes; therefore I cannot give out court summons for the next hearing”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court rejects Nasheed stay order on Hulhumalé Court bench changes

The Civil Court has decided “there are no grounds” to grant a stay order asking the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to halt the process of reappointment of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court.

The order was requested by former President and opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) leader Mohamed Nasheed, who is challenging the assembly of the bench tasked with trying him for the detention of judge Abdulla Mohamed while in office.

In the hearing held yesterday (February 15) at 4pm, the presiding judge stated that the stay order cannot be granted as the court has not found that the JSC is bringing changes to the Hulhumalé Court bench.

Meanwhile the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC) has expressed concern over the “sudden resumption” of Nasheed’s trial, noting that the committee is closely monitoring the developments.

The BHRC said it had closely followed the case for almost two years. Previous observation of the case led the committee to describe the Hulhumalé court bench as “cherrypicked to convict”, prompting calls for “fundamental reform of the judiciary and its administration in the Maldives”.

In answering Nasheed’s stay order request, the JSC has previously denied that it is bringing any changes to the court, also claiming that it does not currently exist as the two out of three of the magistrates first appointed have now been promoted to superior courts.

Saturday’s trial saw the JSC raise a procedural issue, stating that while the commission has the authority and power to allocate and transfer judges, the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to deliberate on the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench as the bench was appointed on the Supreme Court’s advice.

The JSC lawyers also contended that the decision was not made by the Judicial Council as claimed by Nasheed’s lawyers, as the responsibilities and authority of the council have been taken over the Supreme Court.

Procedural issues

Nasheed’s lawyers asked whether the JSC is claiming that the Civil Court cannot deliberate on the matter because the commission interprets the Supreme Court’s advice on appointing the bench as a court ruling or because the JSC does not believe Civil Court has jurisdiction on the matter.

The JSC lawyers responded by stating that the “procedural issue is based on Supreme Court’s decision”.

In Nasheed’s challenge at the High Court regarding the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court bench, the JSC raised a similar jurisdictional issue, with the High Court deciding that it did not have jurisdiction to look into the matter, saying it could only deliberate on decisions taken by lower courts.

In reply, Hisaan Hussain from Nasheed’s legal team explained that Article 43 (C) of the Constitution afforded every citizen the right to appeal against any administrative decision and that “therefore we are appealing JSC’s administrative decision to convene the magistrates panel”.

Subsequently, the JSC clarified that the procedural issue was based not on jurisdictional grounds but because the commission believes that the Supreme Court’s advice on appointing the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench is the court’s ruling.

At that point, the presiding judge stated that the Supreme Court had issued a circular that “changes the composition of the Civil Court by 12am tonight (by 15th February)”, explaining that “I cannot assure you that I will be sitting on this appeal after the said changes; therefore I cannot give out court summons for the next hearing.

Nasheed’s legal team also requested more time to discuss the case with the legal team and lawyers based outside Maldives.

The controversial court was formed specifically to oversee Nasheed’s trial for the January 2012 detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed. Legal challenges to the court have seen the case stalled since April 2013.

Nasheed’s lawyers have previously challenged – unsuccessfully – the establishment of a magistrates court in the Malé suburb, arguing that Hulhumalé is considered to be part of Malé City under the Decentralisation Act and therefore does not require a separate court.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul has also noted that the “appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws”.


Related to this story

High Court cannot deliberate on Hulhumalé court bench

Nasheed’s request for halt to Hulhumalé court appointments denied

Nasheed requests reappointments to Hulhumalé court be stopped

Nasheed trial part of drive to eliminate President’s opponents, says MDP

Fair trial for Nasheed “difficult to see” when judicial bench “cherrypicked to convict”: BHRC trial observers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judicature amendments to appeal process come into force February 15

The High Court has announced that lower court and tribunal decisions can only be appealed under the new process established by the Supreme Court from Sunday (February 15)

The instructions referred to by the High Court – published on January 27 – state that the request for appeal must be submitted by filing the necessary forms to the  lower court or tribunal that deliberated on the case, within 10 days of its conclusion.

The lower court or tribunal must then send the forms to the upper court within 7 days of the appeal request, before the upper court is then obliged to complete all administrative processes necessary within 7 days of receiving the appeal documentation.

High Court Spokesman Amin Faisal was unable to give further details, confirming only that the appeal process will be in accordance with the Supreme Court circular from Sunday onwards.

The amendments to the Judicature Act also mandate the formation of two additional branches of the High Court in the northern and southern regions of the Maldives. The two new branches can only adjudicate the rulings of the magistrate courts.

The nine-member High Court is to be divided among the three branches, with three judges in each branch.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court to oversee senior administrative appointments

The Supreme Court has published regulations mandating that senior administrative staff of the judiciary be appointed only after direct consultation with the court’s bench.

According to the regulation posted on the court’s website yesterday (January 3), individuals chosen to fill senior administrative positions in the judiciary will be interviewed for the job by a panel appointed by the Supreme Court bench.

Individuals seeking senior administrative jobs must be able to prove their working experience, knowledge of the laws regarding state finances, leadership and managerial skills, fluency in Dhivehi and other foreign languages – including English or Arabic, and their capacity to represent Maldives in international forums and seminars.

The court last year introduced regulations making it mandatory for judges and judicial employees to seek permission to attend overseas events, prompting suggestions that the Supreme Court is centralising judicial administration.

Similar claims made by the Human Rights Commission of Maldives have resulted in an ongoing ‘suo moto’ case in the Supreme Court in which the commission is charged with undermining the Constitution and the country’s sovereignty.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP concerned over changes to legal appeal process

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has expressed concern about citizens’ right to appeal following a reduction in the time allowed for cases to be filed.

“MDP is severely concerned that the Supreme Court has passed a ruling which would deprive citizens of the right to appeal as mentioned in the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court is amending regulations passed by the parliament and is imposing upon the legislative power,” said a statement released yesterday (January 30).

“We would like to point out that the appeal period at the Supreme Court is now unclear,” suggesting that the removal of relevant articles of the Judicature Act were beyond the court’s prerogative.

The court’s decision reduces the time allowed to file appeals in the higher courts from 90 days (180 for cases from the atolls) to ten, prompting legal experts to accuse the court of infringing upon the constitutional right to an appeal.

“They have taken out the appeal process,” says former Judicial Services Commission member Aishath Velezinee. “Ten days for appeal will deprive people of the right to appeal.”

Another legal expert suggested that the new time frame would make it practically impossible for many people to lodge an appeal.

While the court has claimed that current time frames for appeal deny the right to “fair and public hearing within a reasonable time” – Article 42 of the Constitution, legal experts say the changes will in practice remove the right to appeal enshrined in Article 56.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)