Tag: supreme court

Supreme Court declares Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimate

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declared that the controversial Hulhumale Magistrate Court was legitimate and could operate as a court of law.

The decision has ramifications for the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed, who is facing charges of illegally detaining Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during his final days in office. Nasheed and his party disputed the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, which was formed by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) and which appointed the panel of judges hearing Nasheed’s case. The JSC includes two of Nasheed’s direct political opponents.

Out of the seven member Supreme Court bench, four judges ruled in favor of the court’s legitimacy while three judges including the Chief Justice had opposed it. The other two judges were Judge Abdulla Areef and Judge Mu’uthazim Adnan.

The four judges who ruled in favor of the court were Judge Abdulla Saeed, Judge Ali Hameed Abdulla, Judge, Judicial Service Commission (JSC) President Adam Mohamed Abdulla and Judge Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi.

The Supreme Court majority ruling stated that despite Hulhumale being mentioned as part of capital Male’ City in the Decentralisation Act, Hulhumale was an “island” with a large population and therefore, having no division of a superior court on that island and if not for the presence of Hulhumale Magistrate Court, its inhabitants would have to travel to another island in order to get justice. Therefore it declared Hulhumale Magistrate Court as legitimate.

Supreme Court also declared that Hulhumale’ is a separate island in Male’ division, even though the law recognises Hulhumale as a part of Male’ City.

The three dissenting judges, having taken different legal arguments, mutually agreed that Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court could not be legally established.

All three judges had unanimously agreed that courts should be established through legislation and that the Hulhumale Magistrate Court was not established in accordance with the Judicature Act.

The case was filed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the respondent of the case was decided as lawyer Ismail Wisham.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team also sought to intervene in the court case. Nasheed’s lawyers stated that the case involved the interests of the former president as his case regarding the detention of the Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed is being looked by Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Disregard to principle of bias

During the first hearings, the former Attorney General Husnu al Suood, who was representing the respondent raised procedural points whereby he argued that Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed Abdulla could not sit on the bench since he was also the President of the JSC, which therefore amounted to “presumption of bias”.

However, the Supreme Court rejected the procedural points.

Following today’s decision, Suood in a tweet described the decision as a “case of actual bias” with regard to his previous arguments in court.

“A case of actual bias because JSC would [have] lost the case without the vote of JSC president: 3 for 3 against, casting vote by JSC [president]” – Husnu Al Suood tweeted

Meanwhile, MDP MP and Lawyer Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy criticised the Supreme Court decision and echoed similar sentiments.

“The suspect sitting on [Supreme Court] bench today killed and buried in Maldives the very basis for the rule against bias! That’s solid murder!” he tweeted.

Arguments

During the hearing, the respondents argued that according to the existing law, there were no legal basis to support the legal existence of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which had been formed in contradiction to the constitution and the Judicature Act article 53.

Judicature Act Article 53(e) states that if four divisions of the four superior courts are established in one island, then “the magistrate court of that island will be abolished. And if a division from among the four courts is established in an island, matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the relevant court shall be carried out by the relevant division and not by the magistrate court.”

The respondent’s lawyer claimed that with reference to the constitution and the Decentralisation Act, it was clear that Hulhumale’ and Villimale are now considered as a part of Male’ even though they are geographically two islands, therefore a magistrate court cannot be set up in any of the islands which under the law are now considered wards.

The intervening Nasheed’s lawyers also echoed the remarks on the case. Nasheed’s lawyers requested a period of three days to research the documents – which they claimed to have only received just a few minutes before the hearing – but were denied the opportunity.

The JSC lawyers who filed the case argued that Hulhumale’ and Villimale were only considered as a part of Male’ for administrative purposes and that this argument did not have any legal basis. Therefore, they stated, Hulhumale’ should be “judicially” considered a separate island.

The lawyers also claimed that the court was set up with the intention of providing easy access to justice for the people of Hulhumale. They also claimed that according to the Judicature Act article 66, each island must have a magistrate court and that prior to the passing of the Act, the court had been functioning as an island court.

The artice 66 states – “A Magistrate Court shall be established in all inhabited islands with the exception of Male’ where there are the four superior courts created in accordance with Article 53(b) of this Act and in an island where four divisions of these four superior courts are established in accordance with Article 53 (c) of this Act.”

Responding to the claims of the JSC, the respondents stated that based on the documents presented to the court, the Hulhumale court was formed to function as a section of Civil Court and Family Court prior to the passing of the Judicature Act.

The added that only island courts were to be declared as magistrate courts according to the judicature act and since Hulhumale Court was a section of the superior courts, it cannot be declared as a magistrate court according to the Judicature Act.

No one should meddle with the courts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court decision on the matter is followed by its previous order invalidating the decision of Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee to not recognise the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

In the order, the Supreme Court ordered not to meddle with the business of the courts by other institutions of the state stating that the country’s constitutional system broadly entertained the principle of separation of powers, no one power of the state can go beyond the limits set out in the constitution.

“According to articles 5, 6 and 7 of the constitution that came to force on 7 August 2008, the Maldivian constitutional system has explicitly set out that the executive power, legislative power and the judicial power is independent from one another and the boundaries of each power being clearly set out, it is unconstitutional for one power of the state to go beyond its constitutional boundaries as stated in article 8 of the constitution,” read the order.

The Supreme Court also in its order maintained that as per the constitution, the judicial power of the state was the sole constitutional authority in settling legal disputes between the institutions of the state or private parties.

“The judiciary established under the constitution is an independent and impartial institution and that all public institutions shall protect and uphold this independence and impartiality and therefore no institution shall interfere or influence the functioning of the courts,” it added.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court invalidates anti-defection clause in Decentralisation Act

The Supreme Court has on Tuesday invalidated clause 119(e) of the Decentralization Act, which had prevented a councilor from switching political parties after he was elected.

The clause was brought into force following an amendment proposed to the Act on January 2011.

The Supreme Court’s seven-member bench held that the concerned clause contradicted the articles 30(a) and 26(c) of the constitution.

The case was filed by Independent MP and lawyer Ibrahim Riza and Lawyer Ahmed Shaheem who argued that the clause was unconstitutional. Jumhoree Party (JP) Youth Wing Leader Moosa Anwar also intervened in the case.

The article 119(b) of the Decentralisation Act states: “Those elected under a ticket from a political party shall lose his seat if he leaves or he is removed from the party he was when elected.”

The new verdict by the Supreme Court will mean that councilors can now switch from party to party without losing their seat.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed ratified the act on May 2010 but rejected a complementary bill on local council elections.

Nasheed at the time said that his then Attorney General (AG) Husnu Suood advised the president’s office that although the decentralization bill would not hamper the implementation of government policies, some provisions were “legally questionable.”

“If the bill becomes law, both the attorney general and this office has noted that there could be legal problems in enforcing it without amendments,” he told the press.

He echoed similar sentiments on the bill in his weekly radio address at the time where he stated that he would sign the bill into law despite misgivings as any further delays would do “more harm than good”.

“I hope that after I ratify this bill, amendments will be made as soon as possible, within the present framework, to change the provisions where these conflicts could arise,” he said at the time.

Although then opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) removed the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s concept of provinces from the government’s bill, Nasheed said the Act did not prohibit the creation of province as it stipulates that new legislation would be needed to form “province councils.”

Despite opposition from MPs in opposition claiming that grouping atolls into seven provinces was unconstitutional as 21 administrative areas or atolls were clearly specified in the constitution, Nasheed later established provinces in an administrative level.

The bill was subjected to several amendments and court cases.

Last August, the Supreme Court ruled that provisions of the Decentralisation Act were not in conflict with the constitution.

In March 2011, former State Minister for Home Affairs Mohamed ‘Monaza’ Naeem filed a case at the apex court arguing that some provisions of the Act contradicted the unitary nature of the Maldivian state as laid out in the constitution, and requested the conflicting articles be struck down.

Naeem had argued that the Local Government Authority (LGA) created by the Decentralisation Act was not answerable to any government minister while article 140 of the constitution states – “A member of the cabinet shall be given responsibility for each authority or institute established by the government or the People’s Majlis, except for independent institutions specified in this constitution or established pursuant law. Such member of the cabinet must take responsibility for the operation of such authority or institution and must be accountable for it.”

Previously, several councilors lost their seats following removal from their respective political parties.

In March this year, Noonu atoll Maafaru Island Councilor Anwar Abdul Ghanee lost his seat after he was removed from his party Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) but contested the by-elections with Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) ticket, winning the seat.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court overrules Parliament’s decision to invalidate Hulhumale Magistrate Court

The Supreme Court has issued an order invalidating the decision of Parliament’s Independent Institutions Oversight Committee to not recognise the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed is currently facing charges in the Hulhumale Court for the detention of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed during the final days of his administration.

The oversight committee this week declared the court illegitimate, claiming it lacked “constitutional and legal grounds” to support its legitimacy.

In an order, (No. 2012/SC-SJ/05) issued on November 28, the Supreme Court declared that no institution should meddle with the business of the courts, claiming that it held parental authority over “constitutional and legal affairs” and would not allow such “interference” to take place.

“Any action or a decision taken by an institution of the state that may impact the outcome of a matter that is being heard in a court of law, and prior to a decision by the courts on that matter, shall be deemed invalid, and [the Supreme Court] hereby orders that these acts must not be carried out,” the order read.

Though the order did not specifically mention the decision by the parliamentary oversight committee, it was issued shortly after the committee’s decision regarding the Hulhumale’ court.

Last Tuesday, the Independent Institutions Oversight Committee,following an issue presented by three sitting MPs, declared there were no “legal grounds” to accept the setting up and functioning of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court based on the powers vested to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) under article 159 of the constitution and article 21 of the Judicial Service Commission Act, and based on the articles 53 and 63 of Judicature Act.

The members of the committee claimed there was a lack of any legal reasoning to recommence the works of the concerned court after its work had been suspended for five months after the Judicature Act came to force.

Article 63 of the Judicature Act states: “A Magistrate Court shall be established in all inhabited islands with the exception of Male’ where there are the four superior courts created in accordance with Article 53(b) of this Act and in an island where 4 divisions of these four superior courts are established in accordance with Article 53 (c) of this Act.”

However, the Independent Institutions Oversight Committee in its explanation of the decision stated that the exception of Male’ in the stated article included Hulhumale’, which for administrative purposes is considered a ward of the capital.  The committee argued Hulhumale’ could not be deemed as a separate island to establish a magistrate court.

No one should meddle with the courts: Supreme Court

In quashing the parliamentary committee’s decision, the Supreme Court stated that while the Maldivian constitutional system broadly entertained the principle of separation of powers, no one power of the state can go beyond the limits set out in the constitution.

“According to articles 5, 6 and 7 of the constitution that came to force on 7 August 2008, the Maldivian constitutional system has explicitly set out that the executive power, legislative power and the judicial power is independent from one another and the boundaries of each power being clearly set out, it is unconstitutional for one power of the state to go beyond its constitutional boundaries as stated in article 8 of the constitution,” read the order.

The Supreme Court also in its order maintained that as per the constitution, the judicial power of the state was the sole constitutional authority in settling legal disputes between the institutions of the state or private parties.

“The judiciary established under the constitution is an independent and impartial institution and that all public institutions shall protect and uphold this independence and impartiality and therefore no institution shall interfere or influence the functioning of the courts,” it added.

Not meddling with business of courts – Deputy Chair of Independent Institutions Oversight Committee

Speaking to Minivan News, Deputy Chair of Independent Institutions Oversight Committee MP Ahmed Sameer said the committee was not meddling with the business of the courts, but addressing a constitutional violation carried out by the JSC in establishing an illegitimate court.

Sameer – who is also the deputy leader of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) parliamentary group – stated that it was a responsibility of the parliament to hold independent institutions and other bodies of the state accountable, and that his committee was mandated with the scrutiny of actions of independent institutions.

“Initially, when we summoned the JSC to the committee, they refused to talk to us or provide any information to the committee. However, from the documents that the committee received later, we found out that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was formed by the JSC which is a violation of the constitution and the laws,” he said.

Sameer argued that the constitution explicitly states that courts can only be formed by legislation and not “through a vote in the JSC”.

“The committee’s decision was made based on the findings of the inquiry. We have all the documents including the agendas of the meeting and the meeting minutes. It is clear that the JSC had formed and an act that is beyond the powers vested to the commission in the constitution and the JSC Act,” he added.

Sameer claimed that the decision by the committee was binding and no authority can overrule the decision.

“With the committee’s decision, we do not plan to give the budget to the court and works are underway to in drafting an amendment that would specifically state the courts that would be formed under the law,” he said.

Sameer added that the parliament will not tolerate any decision that undermines its constitutional powers and responsibilities.

Arrest of Judge Abdulla

The issue concerning Hulhumale Magistrate Court’s legitimacy came to limelight following the Prosecutor General (PG) filing criminal charges against former President Mohamed Nasheed for the detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed in January  2012.

Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed was arrested by the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) on the evening of Monday, January 16, in compliance with a police request.

The judge’s whereabouts were not revealed until January 18, and the MNDF acknowledged receipt but did not reply to Supreme Court orders to release the judge.

Then Home Minister Hassan Afeef subsequently accused the judge of “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist”, listing 14 cases of obstruction of police duty including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, barring media from corruption trials, ordering the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, and maintaining “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes.

The judge also released a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Nasheed’s government subsequently requested assistance from the international community to reform the judiciary. Observing that judicial reform “really should come from the JSC”, Foreign Minister at the time, Ahmed Naseemm said that the JSC’s shortcomings “are now an issue of national security.”

The judicial crisis triggered 22 days of continuous protests led by senior opposition figures and those loyal to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom, which eventually led to the controversial toppling of Nasheed’s administration on February 7.

The PG’s Office filed charges based on the investigations by Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) on the arrest, which concluded that Nasheed was the “highest authority liable” for the military-led detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Along with Nasheed, the report concluded that the former president’s Defence Minister, Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu, was a second key figure responsible with others including Chief of Defence Force Moosa Ali Jaleel, Brigadier Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad.

Charges were also filed against all of those which the HRCM investigation report identified as responsible for the arrest in Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Hulhumale Magistrate Court and legitimacy

During the first hearing of the trial, ex-president Nasheed’s lawyers took procedural points challenging the legitimacy of the court, but were rejected without justification. Nasheed’s legal team’s appeal challenging the legitimacy was initially rejected by the High Court claiming that it cannot look into a matter that was already being heard in Supreme Court.

However, the High Court later granted Nasheed an injunction temporarily suspending the trial of the former president at the contested Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.  The injunction is pending a ruling on procedural points raised by the former President’s legal team.

Following the injunction, Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has announced that it had suspended all ongoing cases.

In its announcement, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it has suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

Following the High Court’s injunction granted to Nasheed, the JSC filed a case in Supreme Court asking it to look into the legitimacy of the court. The Supreme Court then instructed the High Court to halt its hearings on the appeal.

Supreme Court had previously ordered the Civil Court to send over all files and documents on a case submitted by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, over a year ago challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court on November 19, held the first hearing of the case concerning the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court and Ismail Visham was decided as the respondent of the case.

Nasheed’s legal team also intervened in the court case. Nasheed’s lawyers stated that the case involved the interests of the former president as his case regarding the detention of the Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed is heard by Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Meanwhile, several prominent figures have raised doubts over the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Former Chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee of the Special Majlis, Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail, in an article in his personal blog stated – “The [Hulhumale’ court] was created by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) without authority derived from law. Therefore the validity of any order or judgement issued by this court is questionable, and the constitution says no one has to obey any unlawful orders, i.e, orders which are not derived from law. Therefore, President Nasheed’s decision to ignore the summons has more than reasonable legal grounds.”

Ismail further writes that no court has the power, under any law, to issue a travel ban on a person without ever summoning them to court.

He also stated that there was ample to room to believe that the courts were acting with a bias against Nasheed, owing to a number of other politicians and business tycoons who were repeatedly defying court orders and summons.

Prominent lawyer and Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed – who is also the chair of Parliament’s Independent Oversight Committee – in his personal blog also echoed similar remarks explaining that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

However following the Supreme Court’s order, Nasheed told Minivan News said that he “wished to give a considered view soon” but refused to reveal a specific date by which he would respond.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court overrules Juvenile Court’s summoning of Speaker of Parliament

The Supreme Court on Thursday overruled a request by the Juvenile Court for Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid to attend the court and answer questions regarding medical insurance for judges.

The Supreme Court noted that making arrangements with the relevant authorities to provide health insurance for judges and their dependents was part of the mandate of the Department of Judicial Administration.

“A Juvenile Court Judge has ordered me to his court today to respond to his queries regarding his health insurance approved by Parliament,” Speaker Shahid tweeted on Thursday.

Two hours later, Shahid revealed that the Supreme Court had “issued a writ of mandamus quashing the Juvenile Court Judge’s order stating Juvenile Court has exceeded its mandate.”

Article 39(a) of the Judges Act (Dhivehi) of 2010 states that health care for judges, their spouses, parents and children under the age of 18 must be provided by the state either in the Maldives or overseas under a medical scheme.

Local media reported last week that health insurance for judges and their dependents had not been provided since the introduction of the universal health insurance programme Aasandha in January 2012.

“We did not summon him. We just requested his presence for a discussion. Health insurance had not been provided to the judges of only [the Juvenile Court]. We have just taken the initiative in this matter,” a Juvenile Court official was quoted as saying.

However, the parliament secretariat informed the Juvenile Court that it could not summon the Speaker.

The Supreme Court writ of mandamus (Dhivehi) meanwhile revealed that the court asked Shahid to attend at 1:00pm on Thursday (November 22).

The order or request was made after not receiving a reply from the Speaker to a letter sent on November 4 requesting health insurance for Juvenile Court judges.

The letter had demanded a reply within a specified period, according to the Supreme Court writ.

The apex court determined that the summons or request to answer its queries was made “outside the legal responsibilities of the Juvenile Court.”

Former President Mohamed Nasheed meanwhile condemned the Juvenile Court’s attempt to summon the Speaker.

“I see the courts trying to establish judicial dictatorship. It’s got to stop,” Nasheed tweeted.

The Juvenile Court incident came during a week when two MPs from Speaker Shahid’s government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) were repeatedly summoned to court over longstanding unpaid debts to the Bank of Maldives.

DRP MP Ali Azim alleged political motivation behind the summons following a vote on Monday to conduct no-confidence motions through secret ballot.

Meanwhile, in March 2011, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) moved the current Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court, Mohamed Naeem, from the Civil Court to the Juvenile Court as a disciplinary action for disregarding decisions of superior courts.

Then-Civil Court Judge Naeem had refused to hear cases involving the Attorney General’s Office before parliament approved the reappointment of then-Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad.

Naeem’s decision defied precedents set by both the Civil Court and High Court, which ruled that the AG could represent the state at court before receiving parliamentary consent.

However, a few days later the JSC appointed Naeem as the chief judge of the Juvenile Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court holds first hearing on legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court

The Supreme Court on Sunday held the first hearing of the case concerning the legitimacy of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The case was filed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and is being heard by the entire seven member bench of the Supreme Court. Respondent in the case was lawyer Ismail Wisham.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team also sought to intervene in the court case. Nasheed’s lawyers stated that the case involved the interests of the former president as his case regarding the detention of the Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed is being looked by Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

At the beginning of the trial, the former Attorney General Husnu al Suood, who was representing the respondent raised procedural points whereby he argued that Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed Abdulla could not sit in the bench since he was also the President of the JSC, which therefore amounted to “presumption of bias”.

However, the Supreme Court rejected the procedural points.

“We understand no reasons were given by the Supreme Court as to the why it decided to not hear the case submitted by the MDP,” the party said in a subsequent press statement. “We believe this goes against the principles of Natural Justice. As a party which will be affected by the decision of the Supreme Court, we believe the MDP has locus standi and as such has the right to be heard.”

Speaking on during case, the respondents argued that according to the existing law, there were no legal basis to support the legal existence of Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which had been formed in contradiction to the constitution and the Judicature Act article 53.

Judicature Act Article 53(e) states that if four divisions of the four superior courts are established in one island, then “the magistrate court of that island will be abolished. And if a division from among the four courts is established in an island, matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the relevant court shall be carried out by the relevant division and not by the magistrate court.”

The respondent’s lawyer claimed that with reference to the constitution and the Decentralisation Act, it was clear that Hulhumale’ and Villimale are now considered as a part of Male’ even though they are geographically two islands, therefore a magistrate court cannot be set up in any of the islands which under the law are now considered wards.

The intervening Nasheed’s lawyers also echoed similar remarks on the case. Nasheed’s lawyers requested a period of three days to research the documents – which they claimed to have only received just a few minutes before the hearing – but were denied the opportunity.

The JSC lawyers who filed the case argued that Hulhumale’ and Villimale were only considered as a part of Male’ for administrative purposes and that this argument did not have any legal basis. Therefore, they stated, Hulhumale’ should be “judicially” considered a separate island.

The lawyers also claimed that the court was set up with the intention of providing easy access to justice for the people of Hulhumale. They also claimed that according to the Judicature Act article 66, each island must have a magistrate court and that prior to the passing of the Act, the court had been functioning as an island court.

The artice 66 states – “A Magistrate Court shall be established in all inhabited islands with the exception of Male’ where there are the four superior courts created in accordance with Article 53(b) of this Act and in an island where four divisions of these four superior courts are established in accordance with Article 53 (c) of this Act.”

Responding to the claims of the JSC, the respondents stated that based on the documents presented to the court, the Hulhumale court was formed to function as a section of Civil Court and Family Court prior to the passing of the Judicature Act.

The added that only island courts were to be declared as magistrate courts according to the judicature act and since Hulhumale Court was a section of the superior courts, it cannot be declared as a magistrate court according to the Judicature Act.

Supreme Court, adjourning today’s sessions did not mention of the next date the hearings would be scheduled.

The case concerning the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court was filed by the JSC in earlier this month, asking the Supreme Court to decide on the matter.

Meanwhile, Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Member of Nasheed’s legal team, lawyer Hisaan Hussain during a press conference held earlier this month, stated that they felt it would be unjust for the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court to be presiding over any case after Nasheed’s case was temporarily halted over allegations of the court being unlawfully established.

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court held the first hearing of Nasheed’s case on October 9. The second hearing had been scheduled for November 4, which was cancelled following the injunction granted Sunday morning by the High Court.

Nasheed’s legal team has previously raised concerns about the legality of the Hulhumale’ court, citing Article 141 (a) of the Constitution and Articles 53 (b) and 62 of the Maldives Judicature Act.

Following the hearing, the MDP in its statement argued that the head of the JSC sitting on the bench during a trial concerning the JSC was against natural justice, and grounds for taking the case to the International Court of Justice.

“That no man shall be his own judge and jury is a fundamental principle of Natural Justice. The Supreme Court decides cases on simple majority and the president of a body that is the appellant and as such a party to the litigation and in which one of the issues is the legality of its own acts, should be disqualified from sitting as a judge in this case,” the party said.

“We are thinking of instructing lawyers to take up this case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). After all once such basic principles of justice are ignored in our highest court of appeal, it paves the way for appeal to the ICJ.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Protesting that “disturbs public” against constitution: Attorney General files case

The Attorney General’s Office has submitted a case claiming that causing public disturbances in the name of political protest is against the constitution.

The case, submitted in September, requests the Supreme Court to rule that such protests are against some articles of the constitution.

This includes disturbing the public, using foul language, protesting in a manner that instills fear into the hearts of children and the elderly.

Deputy Leader of Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Dr Abdullah Mausoom said that people should have the right to the protest, but argued that Maldivians also “don’t want their daily lives disrupted.”

“We have such polarised parties here that are from one extreme to the other, it is expected that people protest.

“However when it disrupts the lives of people, like how the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) camped in one of the parks for weeks, it’s not right,” Mausoom added.

Earlier this year, the MDP set up a protest camp in the surf point area of the city following former president Mohamed Nasheed’s controversial resignation.

In March, security forces cleared the area in response to the violence that had engulfed the city on the morning of the raid, a police spokesperson told Minivan News at the time.

Police alleged that people had been committing crimes and threatening police before retreating to the MDP camp. The MDP claimed the action was a clamp down on freedom of assembly.

Police completely cleared the tsunami monument camp after Attorney General Azima Shukoor told the press that the area belonged to the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), and claimed that Male’ City Council did not have authority to give the area to the MDP.

In May, a second MDP camp at Usfasgandu was raided by police after a search warrant was obtained from the Criminal Court.

Reasons for the search as stated on the warrant included: “suspected criminal activity”, “damage to public property”, and “suspected black magic performed in the area”.

President’s Office Spokesman Masood Imad, told Minivan News that the government fully supports the right to protest, but it needs to be done in such a manner that does not negatively affect the lives of others.

He said: “A protest should be about changing something. A protest conducted in residential areas has nothing to do with parliament. Public protest and public nuisance are two very different things.”

The MDP meanwhile likened the move to Bahrain’s recent efforts to outlaw protesting.

“The MDP strongly condemns efforts to restrict freedom to assembly by the government. One of the most fundamental clauses in the new constitution is the right to protest and we are witnessing democratic gains fast slipping,” said MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor.

The AG office details that the activities detailed in their case breached the right to live, the right to privacy, the right to freedom of expression, the right to form political parties, the right to assembly and the right to provide special protection to children and the elderly.

All Supreme Court judges will be on the bench presiding over this case. The hearing has now been scheduled for Monday.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed requests intervention in Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimacy case

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has requested the Supreme Court allow him to intervene in the case over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Nasheed is to face charges in the Hulhumale Court over the unconstitutional arrest and detention of Chief Criminal Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Procedural points regarding the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Court had been raised by former president Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team, the claims over the courts legitimacy were however dismissed by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court issued an order over the High Court to cease its cases regarding the legitimacy issue of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, until a decision had been reached.

The Supreme Court has confirmed the request made by Nasheed to intervene in the Hulhumale Court legitimacy case, however it is yet to respond to the request, court said.

The first hearing of the case is scheduled for 2:00pm today at the Supreme Court.

The case is being tried at Supreme Court upon request from the Judicial Services Commission to take over the case from the lower court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale Court legitimacy case scheduled for Sunday

The first hearing in the legitimacy case of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court is scheduled for Sunday at the Supreme Court.

The case is being examined by a seven-judge bench including the Chief Justice and is scheduled for 2:00pm.

The case was previously filed by lawyer Ismail Visham at the Civil Court, however a request for the case to be tried at Supreme Court was made by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).

Originally submitted at the lower court about a year ago, the case had been delayed due to the Supreme Court order to halt the case until the Supreme Court decided on the matter.

All documents and files of the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court that were previously filed with the lower court have been forwarded to the Supreme Court.

Procedural points regarding the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Court had also been raised by former president Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team. Claims over the courts legitimacy were however dismissed by Hulhumale Magistrates Court.

The High Court earlier ordered a temporary halt of former president Nasheed’s trial until the court decides on the appeal of the procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team.

An order over the High Court to cease its cases regarding the legitimacy issue of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court was later issued by the Supreme Court until a decision over the matter has been reached.

Therefore former president Nasheed’s case can only resume after the Supreme Court and the High Court decide on the matter respectively.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Judicial Council decided Hulhumale’ court could not hear criminal cases, reveals Nasheed’s legal team

Members of the Judicial Council raised doubts over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court at a meeting in late 2010 and decided that criminal cases were out of its jurisdiction, former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team have revealed.

In a press statement, Nasheed’s legal team said that minutes from a meeting of the Judicial Council were among documents submitted by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to the High Court.

The JSC entered as a third party into an appeal lodged by Nasheed at the High Court challenging a ruling by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, which had summarily dismissed procedural points raised by the former President’s lawyers.

The procedural issues included the legal status of the magistrate court.

However, before the High Court was due to issue a ruling on Nasheed’s appeal, the Supreme Court instructed the High Court to suspend proceedings as the apex court had been asked to determine the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Judicial Council minutes meanwhile revealed that Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, former Chief Judge of the High Court Abdul Gani, former Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya, Magistrate Mohamed Niyaz from the north judicial district and Magistrate Ali Shareef from the south judicial district “all raised questions over the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ court.”

The Judicial Council was abolished after the Supreme Court unilaterally struck down articles in the Judicature Act concerning the council.

“Presenting the case [to the council], the Chief Justice said that following the enactment of the law on courts, members of the judiciary as well as lawyers were saying that the court in Hulhumale’ could not function under the law and that the Hulhumale’ court had been stopped following the passage of the [Judicature Act in 2010],” the press release explained.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified.

Moreover, the minutes revealed that the Judicial Council had decided that criminal cases were out of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s jurisdiction.

The Chief Justice had said at the Judicial Council meeting that the magistrate court had been dealing with civil cases and family disputes.

The press statement noted that it was the opinion on record of all judges at the council meeting that the Hulhumale’ court could not function as a separate court following the enactment of the Judicature Act.

Supreme Court intervention

Nasheed’s legal team also expressed concern with the Supreme Court ordering the High Court to suspend hearings on the appeal.

If the Supreme Court decides to take over the procedural point raised at the High Court, “President Nasheed would lose one stage of appeal,” the legal team said.

Following the High Court granting an injunction or stay suspending the former President’s trial at the Hulhumale’ court, the magistrate court announced that it has suspended all ongoing cases.

However, the Supreme Court last week instructed the magistrate court to resume the cases and took over a case filed at the Civil Court a year ago by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Speaking to press yesterday after a ceremony to open new offices for the Drug Court, Chief Justice Faiz criticized the JSC as “inept” and contended that “challenges faced by the judiciary would have been resolved” if the judicial watchdog body “properly” carried out its responsibilities.

Faiz also said that the case concerning the legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrate Court presently before the Supreme Court had not been addressed before because the JSC had not filed the case.

“When a case was filed in Civil Court contesting the legitimacy of Hulhumale Magistrate Court, the JSC sent a letter to [the Supreme Court] arguing that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to look into the case. We then asked the JSC to file a case as per the procedure and they only filed the case just a few days ago,” he explained.

The Chief Justice added that the Supreme Court would be considering the case as a “high priority”.

The JSC filed the case while Nasheed’s appeal was ongoing at the High Court.

Meanwhile, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, former President Nasheed’s spokesperson, said that the Supreme Court deciding on the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court without allowing the High Court to rule on Nasheed’s appeal would “give weight to what many are saying about the politicization of the Supreme Court.”

The former Special Majlis MP urged the highest court of appeal to allow the High Court to issue a ruling as those unhappy with the judgment could appeal at the Supreme Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)