Tag: supreme court

Supreme Court annuls 10,000 member minimum for political parties

The Supreme Court has annulled the 10,000 member minimum for political parties, stipulated in the recently-passed Political Parties Act.

Local media reported with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the minimum membership will fall to 3000 members as per previous legislation.

Following ratification of the 10,000 member limit, 11 smaller political parties were effectively dissolved, including the Gaumee Ithhiaad Party (GIP) of President Mohamed Waheed. He is contesting the upcoming election as an independent candidate.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court holds first hearing into case filed by PPM official against Elections Commission

The Supreme Court has held the first hearing into a case filed by Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Appeal Committee Member Ahmed Zaneen Adam against the Elections Commission, contesting its credibility ahead of the scheduled Presidential Elections.

On Monday, Zaneen filed a case at the Supreme Court requesting it order an audit of the commission’s IT systems through an independent IT auditor to “ensure they are credible”.

Presenting his case today (August 29), Zaheen claimed that he had filed the case as a “Public Interest Litigation” case based on three grounds.

The first point – founded upon two articles written on local newspaper Haveeru, one article titled “Elections Commission’s server under continuous attack” and the other titled “Haveeru’s web developers concerned over security of Election Commission’s IT system” – Zaneen claimed that it was necessary in a world where “powerful states are trying to control smaller states” to conduct an independent audit on the Elections Commission’s IT system for security breaches.

In his second point, the PPM Appeal Committee member contested that an extraordinarily huge amount of forms had been submitted to the Elections Commission when it had opened its voter re-registration.

Voter re-registration is required by law, should a person such who is voting in an island which he/she is not originally registered in such as a student from an island studying in Male and Maldivians residing abroad.

Zaneen claimed that the public was very concerned regarding the number of forms submitted for re-registration and pleaded the Supreme Court to order the Elections Commission to have the final voter list of all ballot boxes sealed and signed by all political party campaign agents, before being sent to polling stations.

On the third point, he requested the Supreme Court rule that the security services, the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) and the police have a legal mandate to oversee the election process and vote counting process to ensure that security is maintained throughout the process.

Responding to the case, Head of the Elections Commission’s legal team, former Attorney General Husnu Al Suood, contested that Zaneen’s case lacked any legal grounds and that he had filed a case requesting preventive measures from Supreme Court based on his personal concerns and doubts.

Suood further challenged that as Zaneen was not a candidate in the presidential elections, he did not have the legal capacity to file such a case and requested the court dismiss the matter.

Responding to the first and second points, Suood argued that Zaneen had not followed the due process in filing his concerns, claiming that the Elections Commission had set up the National Elections Complaints Bureau (NECB) to hear complaints and the law allowed an appeal to be filed at the High Court, should a person feels discontent about the bureau’s decision.

Suood also argued that the final voter list used by the Elections Commission was a physically printed list and that it had nothing to do with the data stored on the server of the elections commission, claiming that no online security breach could possibly influence the outcome of the vote.

He also said that the physical list was a verified and error-checked list that had the seal and signature of three members of the Elections Commission.

Responding to the third point, Suood claimed that under the constitution, the Elections Commission had sole authority to conduct and hold elections and would operate independently. The role of the security services, Suood contended, was to assist the Elections Commission throughout the election process.

The former Attorney General also claimed that a presidential election conducted under the watch of the military would not be seen by the democratic world as a free and fair election.

Summing up his response, Suood told the seven-member Supreme Court that it was not sensible to carry out a case filed against the Elections Commisson based on an individual’s personal perception and needlessly create doubt over the election’s credibility.

Meanwhile, the members of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s legal team – who had been able to intervene at the last minute – echoed similar sentiments to Suood, contending that should the Supreme Court issue an injunction based on a case filed on personal perception and doubt, it would destroy all constitutional and legal principles established in the constitution and law.

The MDP’s legal tea,m headed by former Solicitor General Ibrahim Riffath, added that it was saddening and deeply regrettable to see a case filed against the Elections Commission that did not have any written evidence to support itself, or even grounds of proof required in a civil case.

Riffath also contested that it was the constitutional duty of the Elections Commission, and not the security service, to enforce the law concerning elections and voting. He added that the constitution explicitly states that independence of independent institutions must be ensured at all times.

Today’s hearing – heard by the full seven member bench of the Supreme Court – was adjourned but the judges did not state when the next would be scheduled.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Senior PPM official files Supreme Court case against Elections Commission

The Supreme Court is to hold the first hearing into a case against the Elections Commission (EC) filed by a senior member of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

PPM Appeal Committee member Ahmed Zaneen Adam filed a case against the EC with the Supreme Court on Monday (August 26), requesting the court order an independent audit of the commission’s IT systems to “ensure they are credible”, and to order state security forces to “ensure the election does not face any undue influence”.

Adam claimed the case was filed in his “personal capacity” and not on behalf of his party – who have denied knowledge of the case.  The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has disputed this claim.

Adam’s submission also requested the court determine whether the voter re-registration process had been conducted fairly, and asked the court to order the EC to place a copy of the original electoral register – signed by all presidential candidates – in all polling stations.

The Supreme Court has accepted the case and scheduled the first hearing at 2:00pm on Thursday (August 29).

“I have not been informed whether the party has submitted a case to the Supreme Court concerning the competency of the Elections Commission’s work,” PPM MP and Spokesperson Ahmed Nihan told Minivan News today.

Nihan claimed that the party was cautious of backing any action that could compromise the election scheduled for September 7.

“I certainly believe that we do not want to take any action that would halt the election. We have to be very careful going forward,” he said. “We will have to wait to see if anything is submitted.”

The Supreme Court hearing follows a series of recent complaints against the EC issued by both the PPM and Jumhoree Party (JP).  The PPM claimed last week their concerns had gone “unaddressed” and they would seek a legal resolution against the Commission.

PPM vice presidential candidate and former Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed is heading the party’s legal team concerning the issues it has raised against the EC.

PPM trying to delay elections: MDP

“The PPM wants to delay elections or have the Supreme Court intervene to do so,” said MDP Spokesperson Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy.

“I haven’t seen PPM conducting nationwide campaigning. They just started conducting door to door campaigning two weeks ago,” Fahmy continued. “They are delayed or not ready for elections at all.”

Fahmy alleged that the PPM would have known Adam was filing a case against the EC and that Adam would not have acted without the party’s consent, given his leadership role.

“As a member of PPM’s Appeals Committee, he would not have taken action without the PPM’s consent and approval,” he said.

“If Adam were a member of an MDP committee and wanted to take legal action in a personal capacity, the party would not allow that,” he added.

Fahmy said be believed the PPM would not succeed in delaying the presidential election considering the EC was constitutionally established as an independent commission and had successfully carried out every democratic election in the country since its inception.

“The Commission has already set the date for elections, all the preparations have been made, the voter registry list has been completed, and political parties – especially the MDP – are ready for elections,” he noted.

“The Supreme Court should reject the PPM case because it is not within their mandate to stop elections, they should not intervene,” Fahmy continued.

“People all over the Maldives are ready for the election. If something unexpected happens it will be a really big issue that people will not accept at all. I don’t think the Supreme Court will take that action,” he added.

MDP to enter the fray

The MDP today submitted a petition to the Supreme Court to join the case as a third party. However, the court rejected this application due to a “technical problem”, Fahmy stated.

He explained that the court had asked for more details in the paperwork, despite the documents submitted by the PPM not being provided.

The MDP’s legal team plans to re-submit the appropriate paperwork tomorrow morning in a process one party lawyer said can be completed in minutes.

“We will submit our application to join the case as a third party tomorrow morning. MDP not only has an interest in the case, but a jurisdictional right to join the case,” he continued.

“There are no grounds for the PPM to question [the EC’s work] by submitting a case against them. They have conducted their work and dispersed information very transparently,” he added.

Elections Commission Chair Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice Chair Ahmed Fayaz, and PPM vice presidential candidate Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed had not responded to requests for information at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Transparency Maldives voices concerns over Supreme Court integrity

Transparency Maldives has raised questions over the integrity of the Supreme Court after a recent scuffle within the seven-member judges bench over the appointment of parliament’s choice to replace former Chair of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Mohamed Fahmy Hassan.

“Transparency Maldives calls upon the Supreme Court to maintain its actions in such a fashion that the court does not allow further diminishing of its integrity and to be transparent in its functioning and sharing of information to strengthen the public trust towards the institution,” read the statement.

The Supreme Court’s seven-member bench was split following the issuance of an injunction ordering the appointment of Dr Mohamed Latheef at the CSC. Chief Justice of Supreme Court Ahmed Faiz Hussain released a statement to media accusing his own court of issuing the injunction without the knowledge of himself and two other Supreme Court Justices (Ibrahim Areef and Muthasim Adnan).

The local NGO has released a statement claiming that the Supreme Court’s failure to make key documents public, such as the recent injunction, showed how much the apex court of the country disregarded the need for transparency in important matters.

Transparency in the functioning of an institution and respecting the right to information being a fundamental necessity in order to refrain from corruption and corrupt practices, said Transparency, pointing out that disregard for such necessities a negative impact on public confidence.

The Supreme Court, being the final authority to decide on all legal and constitutional matters of the state, was irresponsible to allow the public to question its integrity at a time when political polarization has taken its toll, said Transparency.

The NGO called on the court to release a copy of the injunction, and the statement made by the Chief Justice regarding the injunction, to public as it concerned the interests of the public.

Parliament and courts clash

The parliament and the Supreme Court came to loggerheads following Supreme Court’s decision to overrule the parliamentary deposition of then CSC Chair Fahmy.

In November last year parliament voted 38 – 32 to remove the CSC chair after the Independent Institutions Committee investigated a complaint of sexual harassment lodged by a female employee of the CSC.

Fahmy was alleged to have called the female staff member over to him, taken her hand and asked her to stand in front of him so that others in the office could not see, and caressed her stomach saying ”it won’t do for a beautiful single woman like you to get fat.”

On 14 March 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that parliament’s decision to remove Fahmy from his position was not based on reasonable grounds and invalidated the decision.

Earlier this August, the parliament disregarded a prior Supreme Court’s ruling when appointing Fathimath Reenee Abdul Sattar to replace Fahmy at the commission.

However, just minutes before the former Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Defence was given the letter of appointment by President Mohamed Waheed Hassan to, the Supreme Court issued an injunction to halt the appointment contending that Fahmy had requested the Supreme Court to look into the matter.

According to local media reports, the court’s injunction stated that appointing a new member to the commission, when the court had already decided the dismissal had been in violation of the constitution, was itself unconstitutional.

Shortly after the Supreme Court Injunction, the chief justice then accused his own court of issuing an injunction without his knowledge.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General Azima Shukoor has reportedly advised President Waheed that he does not have any responsibility for determining members to the CSC.

Last week, Parliament appointed CSC member and former chair Dr Mohamed Latheef as the new chair of the commission. However, Fahmy has refused to step down and is still continuing to appear at the CSC meetings as the chair of the commission leading to further disputes.

Last Thursday, the new CSC Chair Dr Latheef sent a letter to the President asking him to find a solution to ongoing issues with Fahmy. Dr Latheef stated that Fahmy continued to come into work after his dismissal by the parliament, obstructing the running of the institution.

Latheef told the president that this issue affected both the civil servants themselves and the services being provided to the public. President Waheed responded last Friday stating that he would make a decision within the next three days regarding the issue.

“I have to seek the legal advice on the matter. This matter has become very complicated now,” President Waheed told local newspaper Haveeru on Friday.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

New CSC head asks president to resolve issue with Mohamed Fahmy Hassan

The new chair appointed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Dr Mohamed Latheef has sent a letter to President Dr Mohamed Waheed asking him to find a solution to ongoing issues with previous commission chief Mohamed Fahmy Hassan.

Former CSC Chair Fahmy was dismissed by the parliament over allegations of sexual harassment against a female staff member.

In the letter, Dr Latheef stated that the issue of former CSC Chair Fahmy coming into work after his dismissal by the parliament was still unresolved and that it was an obstruction to the running of the institution.

Latheef told the president that this issue affected both the civil servants themselves and the services being provided to the public.

He referred to constitution Article 196(c) 116, stating that it was the responsibility of the president to solve the issues within government institutions and to uphold the constitution and laws.

Article 196(c) states that “the principles of governance of the state being determined by this constitution, the president shall uphold, defend and respect the constitution, and shall promote the unity of the state.’’

Parliament Yesterday (21 August) sent a letter to President Waheed informing him of the decision made to appoint Dr Mohamed Latheef as the new chair of the CSC.

On August 13, the parliament appointed a new member to the CSC to replace Fahmy, who was dismissed in November 2012 over allegations that he sexually harassed a female member of staff.

51 out of 54 MPs present in the parliament at the time voted in favor of appointing Fathimath Reenee Abdulsathar as Fahmy’s replacement, while the remaining three MPs abstained.

In November last year, parliament voted 38 – 32 in favour of removing the CSC chair after the Independent Institutions Committee investigated a complaint of sexual harassment against him lodged by a female CSC employee.

On 14 March 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that parliament’s decision to remove Fahmy from his position was not based on reasonable grounds and invalidated the decision.

On August 15, the Supreme Court issued an injunction to halt parliament’s appointment just as the President’s Office prepared to give credentials to Reenee.

However, the following day Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain accused his own court of issuing the injunction without his knowledge.

Former Judicial Services Commission (JSC) member Aishath Velazinee has argued that the Majlis was given authority over CSC appointments in 2010, describing the Supreme Court’s move as a “mutiny”.

During a visit to Fuvahmulah this week, President Waheed expressed his disappointment with the court’s dispute, whilst maintaining that his hands were constitutionally tied.

“All institutions are independent. Although the head of state is the president, there are no arrangements in place for him to take action against other institutions. There is not much authority. The president has quite ceremonial powers,” he is reported to have said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Chief Justice pleads ignorance over Supreme Court’s injunction blocking CSC appointment

The Chief Justice of the Maldives Supreme Court has accused his court of issuing an injunction without his knowledge, following parliament’s appointment of a replacement for Civil Service Commission (CSC) chief Mohamed Fahmy Hassan.

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain told local media that the decision to block the swearing in of Fahmy’s replacement was made without the knowledge of three of the court’s seven judges. Such a move would contravene the country’s constitution which mandates an uneven number of judges be present for all Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court told local media yesterday that their earlier invalidation of the Majlis’s decision to dismiss Fahmy rendered the decision to replace him redundant. The statement alleged that Faiz had rejected a request to attend an emergency meeting to address the issue.

Aishath Velazinee, former member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) on which the chair of the CSC automatically serves, has described the incident as a “mutiny in the Supreme Court.”

Fahmy’s replacement Fathimath Reenee Abdulsathar was reportedly on the verge of taking the oath of office in the President’s Office on Thursday when the ceremony was halted with news of the injunction.

The People’s Majlis had earlier in the week voted overwhelmingly to replace former CSC head Fahmy after allegations of sexual harassment. The Supreme Court had previously ruled parliament’s decision to dismiss Fahmy as unconstitutional.

The Majlis Independent Institutions Committee launched an investigation into Fahmy’s alleged misconduct in June 2012. Velazinee argued that the Majlis does have the authority to appoint and dismiss CSC members after an amendment made to the CSC Act in 2010.

The Supreme Court told local media yesterday that their earlier invalidation of the Majlis’s decision to dismiss Fahmy rendered the decision to replace him redundant.

Velazinee compared the incident to the manoeuvres of the High Court bench in 2010, which she described as “the first of many mutinies that had eventually led to the coup of February 7, 2012.”

She notes that it was the same judges involved in circumscribing the powers of the JSC for political ends in 2010 who were behind this new “mutiny”. A full account of the events surrounding the self-appointment of the Supreme Court at the end of the constitutional transitional period were documented in Velazinee’s 2012 book ‘The Failed Silent Coup: In Defeat, They Reached for the Gun’.

In her assessment of judicial independence in the Maldives earlier this year, UN Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul described this decision to retain all five interim Supreme Court judges as having “no legal or constitutional basis.”

The JSC eventually opted to interpret Article 285 of the country’s new constitution as purely symbolic, waiving the need to remove any sitting judges who failed to meet clearly defined educational and ethical standards.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s resignation from office followed his detention of Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed. Nasheed’s decision to detain the judge came after he filed a successful injunction in the Civil Court preventing his further investigation by the court’s own watchdog body, the JSC.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court issues injunction blocking appointment of new CSC head

The Supreme Court has issued an injunction to halt parliament’s appointment of a replacement president for the Civil Service Commission (CSC), after parliament voted to appoint Fathimath Reenee Abdulsathar of Maafannu Unimaage to the commission.

Renee had been due to replace CSC Head Fahmy Hassan, after the Majlis’s decision to dismiss the CSC chair last year over allegations of sexual abuse. His termination was likewise blocked by a Supreme Court injunction.

The latest injunction came just as Reenee was due to take the oath in the President’s Office and receive her credentials from President Dr Mohamed Waheed this afternoon. A special ceremony to present credentials and take the oath of office had been scheduled at the President’s Office at 2:30pm, local media reported.

According to newspaper Haveeru, the Supreme Court’s injunction stated that the court’s majority had determined that appointing a new member to the commission when the Supreme Court had already decided that the dismissal was in violation of the constitution, was itself unconstitutional.

Local media reports said Attorney General Azima Shukoor had in her legal advice to the president in the matter stated that the president did not have any responsibility for determining members to the CSC, and that the only responsibility for the president was to appoint or dismiss appointees as determined by parliament.

On 13 August, 51 out of 54 MPs present in the parliament voted in favor of appointing Reenee as Fahmy’s replacement, while the remaining three abstained.

In November last year parliament voted 38 – 32 to remove the CSC chair after the Independent Institutions Committee investigated a complaint of sexual harassment lodged by a female employee of the CSC.

On 14 March 2013 the Supreme Court ruled that parliament’s decision to remove Fahmy from his position was not based on reasonable grounds and invalidated the decision.

Local newspaper Haveeru reported that the alleged sexual harassment incident occurred on 29 May 2012, and that the victim was a female senior research officer.

On June 17, Parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee launched an investigation into the alleged harassment.

Fahmy was alleged to have called a female staff member over to him, taken her hand and asked her to stand in front of him so that others in the office could not see, and caressed her stomach saying ”it won’t do for a beautiful single woman like you to get fat.”

According to local media, the woman told her family about the incident, who then called Fahmy. Fahmy then sent her a text message apologising for the incident, reportedly stating, ”I work very closely with everyone. But I have learned my lesson this time.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

AG accuses Civil Court of negligence as City Council proceeds with US$30 million development of West Harbour

The Attorney General has filed a complaint at the Supreme Court accusing the Civil Court of negligence in holding a hearing of a case filed by the state, seeking to prevent Male City Council from outsourcing the development and operation of the West Harbour Area.

Last Sunday Male City Council announced its intention to hand over the development and operation of the West Harbour Area – locally known as the ‘T-Jetty Area’ – to a local company called West Gate Assets Private Limited for a lease period of 25 years.

The project, worth US$30 million, once completed will include coffee shops, cafes, petrol sheds, shopping malls and spacious parking zones intended to resolve severe congestion in Male’ City.

Meanwhile, in its complaint filed at the Supreme Court, the Attorney General’s office claimed the Civil Court’s failure to proceed with the case meant that the government could take no action against the project.

“If that agreement proceeds as it is now, [the Attorney General’s Office] believes that will be carried out unlawfully and this office will continue to take necessary actions against the project,” read a statement from the AG’s office.

The AG further claimed that last December, when the city council announced opened bidding for the project, a case was filed at the Civil Court to invalidate the process through an injunction to stop the bidding process.

However the Attorney General’s office said the Civil Court had failed to hold any hearings into the case since May.

The statement claimed excuses for hearings being delayed included the city council’s lawyer calling in sick, the court being unable to deliver court chits and the judge being on leave.

The project

In a press conference on Sunday, West Gate’s Consultant Ismail Firag told the press that the company intended to develop the area as a phase by phase project with development of the first phase to commence on September 1.

The City Council claimed that the lease agreement had been signed by the City Council and West Gate six months ago, after the project received approval from both the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) and the Housing Ministry.

Male City Council Member Ibrahim Sujau at the press conference said the council would try its best to make arrangements to ensure that the project was completed smoothly without disruptions.

He added that the decision to complete the project in several phases was made to ensure its smooth completion.

The councillor claimed that area was leased to West Gate for a sum of MVR 400,000 (US$ 25,940.34), approximately MVR 320,000 (US$ 20,752.27) more than the current MVR 80,000 (US$ 5,188.07) a month generated in income generated from the area by the City Council.

Opposition

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)-dominated Male City Council has come under heavy fire from the government over the project as both the Housing Ministry and the Attorney General have voiced against outsourcing of the harbour development.

Shortly following the announcement, Housing Minister Mohamed Muizz dismissed the claim made by the City Council that his ministry had given approval to the project.

Speaking to local newspaper Haveeru, the Minister claimed the city council had not shared anything with the ministry before handing the project over to West Gate.

Muizz further contested that city council could not take such major decisions without consulting the ministry as the West Harbour area is considered an important economic zone in Male’ City.

“It is a very important strategic location in Male’. On the other hand, development of that area is a massive project. They can’t hand over the development of the area without obtaining permission from the ministry. We even do not know how they plan to develop the area. It is an outright lie that we had given them the approval,” he said.

Housing Minister claimed the ministry had previously made a master-plan to develop the area and said that he did not believe the city council could hand the project to West Gate under a new master-plan.

Previously, the housing ministry’s bid to stop the project through the Anti Corruption Commission failed after the commission concluded that there was no corruption involved during the bidding process.

But Muizz claimed that he was determined to stop the project.

“We will look into ways to stop the project. But we have not yet decided what will be our actions. Previously, similar attempts had been made to stop other such projects. But the current legal framework itself has difficulties for such actions,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Jumhoree Party backtracks on challenging Nasheed’s candidacy in Supreme Court

Jumhoree Party (JP) Youth Wing President Moosa Anwar has backtracked on an earlier declaration that he would seek to challenge the Elections Commission’s decision to accept former President Mohamed Nasheed as a presidential candidate in the upcoming election through the Supreme Court.

Hours after making the announcement Anwar reversed his decision, stating that he had been advised to do so by Jumhoree Party officials after he was unable to convince an attorney to take the case.

Anwar lodged a similar lawsuit at the then interim Supreme Court contesting the candidacy of Nasheed prior to the 2008 presidential elections.

Anwar previously contested that Nasheed had been convicted and sentenced for theft in 2001 for taking documents that were to be disposed from Velaanaage, the house belonging to former President Ibrahim Nasir – without permission.

According to media reports at the time, Nasheed attended the auction of the house in October 2001 along with then Minister for Construction and Public Works Umar Zahir and his Assistant Director Ibrahim Fayaz.

Nasheed pulled out scraps of discarded paper from the waste of the partially demolished house, which he later packed and labelled for donation to the National Council of Linguistic and Historical Research.

“They laughed and joked as Nasheed pulled scraps of discarded paper from the dust and rubble of the partially demolished house. Minister Rashida Yusuf was delighted when she recognised former President Nasir’s children’s schoolwork that had been marked by her when she had been his teacher many years ago,” read a special report by the Maldives Culture website.

“These papers were collected by Nasheed who later packed and labelled them for donation to the National Council of Linguistic and Historical Research. It was at this point that Nasheed was arrested and held in solitary confinement for a month before being charged and found guilty of theft, and then sentenced to two and a half years exile in Raa Atoll, away from his family and children who live in Male’. The whole process was over in about two and half hours. Mohamed Nasheed had never admitted to the charges of theft, and the judge denied him his legal rights to present his case or respond to the charges made against him,” according to Maldives Culture’s account of the incident.

The prosecution succeeded in removing Nasheed from his seat in parliament –  a move labelled as politically motivated by various international human rights watchdogs.

An appeal in 2002 against the conviction was rejected by the government – which at the time was also the head of judiciary – despite the attorneys who examined the case pointing to grave flaws in the judgement.

Anwar meanwhile contended that the former president’s conviction was a hadd offence under Islamic Sharia and therefore, Nasheed did not satisfy the criteria set out in constitution for a person to hold the office of president.

Article 109(E) of the constitution demands that a person who holds the office of the president and those that are contesting for the post of presidency must “not have been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of more than 12 months, unless a period of three years has elapsed since his release, or pardon for the offence for which he was sentenced”.

The then interim Supreme Court ruled in favour of the former president and declared the Elections Commission’s decision to accept his candidacy as valid, stating that Nasheed’s sentence was not a Hadd offence but a Ta’zir offence under Islamic Sharia.

Under Islamic Sharia law, unlike a Hadd offence which the punishment is prescribed in the holy Quran, Ta’zir offences are punishments applied to the other offences for which no punishment is specified in the Qur’an. It is a lesser degree of offence compared to Hadd offences, and the punishment varies depending on the discretion of the judge or the Qazi.

Anwar told Minivan News today that his latest petition at the Supreme Court would be based on the same grounds with which he challenged Nasheed’s candidacy in 2008. He claimed that he did not believe that Nasheed was eligible to contest in the presidential polls and would lodge the case as soon as the Elections Commission formally announced the candidates list.

Anwar’s submission comes after the five day deadline given by Election Commission regulations to challenge the candidacy of potential presidents. Anwar however had a different interpretation.

“Even back in 2008, I was able to file the case after the time frame given by the Elections Commission. Therefore, I do not believe there was any deadline to file such a case concerning a presidential candidate,” he told Minivan News.

Anwar said he had made several requests to attorneys registered at the Supreme Court to take up the case, but said they were all “too scared” over how “emotional” President Nasheed and his party Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters are.

Therefore, Anwar claimed that he would go all by himself to the Supreme Court, and utilise his “knowledge of the law” during his years spent studying at the faculty of Sharia and Law of the Maldives National University.

“I think it is a problem that our lawyers, judges, police and the military are so afraid of a single individual or a political organisation,” Anwar said, referring to Nasheed and the MDP.

Meanwhile, President Nasheed’s Spokesperson MP Mariya Ahmed Didi told Minivan News that the Supreme Court had previously set strong precedents upholding the Article 60 of the constitutions which prohibits double jeopardy.

Overturning parliament’s deposing of Chair of Civil Service Commission Mohamed Fahmy, the Supreme Court upheld the principle of prohibiting double jeopardy, contending that Fahmy would receive two punishments for the same crime if he was to be removed from his position over the alleged sexual harassment case which is currently looked into by the Prosecutor General.

Therefore, Didi contended that she was confident that the Supreme Court would not accept the case as it was previously decided by the Supreme Court in 2008.

She further claimed that Nasheed’s rival in the election, resort tycoon and presidential hopeful Gasim Ibrahim, was behind the submission of the case, suggesting the move was a desperate ploy in the face of Nasheed’s broad electoral popularity.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)