Tag: supreme court

Supreme Court has removed right of appeal, claim legal experts

Legal experts have accused the Supreme Court of effectively removing the right of appeal after the bench shortened the time in which an appeal case can be filed at a higher court to 10 days.

In a ruling issued yesterday (January 27), the court revoked Article 15 and 42 of the Judicature Act and Article 85 of the Employment Act – which stipulates the current appeal durations – while a Supreme Court circular signed by Chief Justice Abdullah Saeed announced the new time frame.

The move has prompted 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 (JSC) member turned whistle-blower Aishath Velezinee. “Ten days for appeal will deprive people of the right to appeal.”

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

The Supreme Court ruling – signed by all five of the Supreme Court justices – said the current regulations are in violation of Article 42 of the Constitution which states the right to a “fair and public hearing within a reasonable time”.

The Judicature Act currently states that appeals to the higher courts will only be accepted within 90 days, while 180 days is allowed for cases adjudicated in island courts outside of the capital Malé.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court circular stated that the establishment of two regional High Court branches under amendments to the Judicature Act means all appeal cases should be appealed in the region of the court issuing the decision.

According to the amendments passed by parliament last month – which also resulted in the controversial dismissal of two Supreme Court Judges – the nine member High Court will be divided into three branches with three judges assigned to each.

The two regional branches in the North and South will be allowed to hear appeals against magistrate court verdicts while only the Malé branch will be allowed to hear challenges to laws and regulations.

Constitutional rights

Velezinee claimed that by changing the regulations, the Supreme Court is “taking over the functions of the legislator” in an “attack on the Constitution”.

“No right is guaranteed anymore,” said the outspoken critic of the judiciary. “Supreme Court is under the constitution, but now it has gone above the Constitution.”

Velezinee has previously accused the Supreme Court of dominating the entire judiciary, and compromising the independence of the lower courts, via its close oversight of the Department of Judicial Administration.

Similar suggestions made by the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) to the UN Human Rights Council last year prompted the initiation of ‘suo moto’ proceedings on charges of undermining the Constitution and the sovereignty of the country.

Velezinee was barred from the public gallery during the proceedings of the HRCM case in October.

Meanwhile, a prominent legal expert said that by shortening the appeal period, the Supreme Court is “trying to limit a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution”.

“The right to a timely trial should not overlap the right to appeal,” he said. “It is going to be logistically and practically impossible for most people to prepare an appeal case and submit it within ten days.”

He pointed out that most atolls do not have the adequate transportation systems to the nearest court branch, saying that it might be easier for islanders to travel to Malé to file an appeal.

Both he and Velezinee suggested that it normally takes in excess of two weeks to acquire the court report required to adequately prepare for an appeal case.


Related to this story

Supreme Court controls the judiciary, says HRCM report to United Nations

Judicial administration brought under direct control of Supreme Court

Majlis removes Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Justice Muthasim Adnan from Supreme Court

Removal of Supreme Court judges will have “chilling effect” on work of judiciary: UN special rapporteur

A justice system in crisis: UN Special Rapporteur’s report

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumalé Magistrate Court case to resume hearings on February 3

The High Court has today informed both President Mohamed Nasheed and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) as to how the case on the legality of the Hulhumalé Magistrates Court bench will proceed.

Nasheed’s legal team member Hassan Latheef told Minivan News that today’s meeting was conducted by High Court Judge Abbas Shareef, with the JSC and Nasheed’s representatives informed that a hearing of the case would be held on February 3.

They were also informed that each party would receive a ten minute opportunity to summarise their responses during this hearing, and to raise further points regarding procedural issues raised before hearings halted in April 2013.

The judicial watchdog has raised a procedural issue claiming that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to oversee the case.

The resumption of the case, which challenges the legality of the bench assembled to try Nasheed for the January 2012 detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed, was announced one week ago after repeated requests from the former president to expedite proceedings.

Hassan Latheef that Nasheed’s legal team raised several points today, including the small amount of time that each party will be given to present arguments in the next hearing and also the need for further time to review and research the case after recent developments in the judicial system.

“There have been significant changes to the whole judiciary, judges have been transferred, benches reduced and High Court now has two new branches. All this has an impact on the procedural issue raised by JSC. This is why we need more time”, said. Latheef.

He also said that judge Abbas Shareef has agreed to reconsider the request by Nasheed’s legal team for a one and a half month delay of the trial after discussion with the two other judges presiding over the case – Judge Ali Sameer and Judge Shuaib Hussain Zakariyya.

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 previously 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 to rule in appeal on Hulhumale’ court legitimacy

Hulhumale’ Court rejects case against former President Nasheed

High Court invalidates Hulhumale’ court’s rejection of case against former president

Supreme Court declares Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimate

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court decides on providing living allowance to judicial staff

The Supreme Court has decided to provide a living allowance to all judicial staff to ensure that they remain unbiased in their work.

A circular released last night – signed by Chief Justice Abdullah Saeed – read that, in order ensure the independence and integrity of staff who are working towards ensuring the rights of the general public and fulfilling constitutional responsibilities, it is necessary to provide them with a reasonable compensation.

The living allowance was approved by amending Article 53 of the judicial staff regulations by the Supreme Court in accordance with the powers vested to the Supreme Court by the Constitution.

The amount to be given out to staff as the living allowance will be decided by the Judicial Administration Department as per the amendment.

Source: Haveeru

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court resumes Hulhumalé Magistrate Court appeal case

The High Court has scheduled a hearing for January 28 in former President Mohamed Nasheed’s appeal case into the legitimacy of the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court.

The case, which challenges the legality of the bench assembled to try Nasheed for the January 2012 detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed, has been stalled since April 2013.

Hisaan Hussain from the opposition leader’s legal team said that the former president and his representatives have received the chits from the High Court regarding the hearing.

“The chits from the high court said it was a preliminary hearing,” said Hisaan.

“However these kind of meetings are usually where documents are exchanged and do not happen in the middle of an ongoing trail, therefore we are regarding this as a hearing.”

Meanwhile, in a press statement today the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) said that Nasheed has been “receiving threats that he will be arrested as soon as he returns to the Maldives” from his visit to Abu Dhabi.

Nasheed – who has recently urged the government to expedite the trial – tweeted today that he will be cutting his trip short after hearing of the government’s intentions to arrest him and will arrive tomorrow afternoon.

The former president was arrested in October 2012 after the Hulhumale Magistrate Court issued a warrant following his failure to adhere to court summons.

Also charged with the detention of Judge Abdulla Mohamed were prominent figures from the Nasheed government, including Major General (retired) Moosa Ali Jaleel.

Jaleel was appointed as minister of defence yesterday following the dismissal of Mohamed Nazim, who is being investigated on suspicion of keeping illegal weapons in his home.

The Prosecutor General’s Office has subsequently said it will not be withdrawing with the charges against the new defence minister, while President’s Office Spokesman Ibrahim Muaz told Minivan News that the cases of Jaleel and Nazim are not comparable.

“There is a massive difference between security services finding dangerous weapons and an ongoing case intiated by a previous administration. The president has decided to trust Jaleel even with the pending case,” said Muaz.

Stalled case

In a statement today, the MDP noted that the threats to arrest Nasheed come at a time when “President Yameen’s government has been threatening various political figures while undermining the Constitution”.

Chief among the complaints levelled against the government are recent amendments to the Judicature Act which saw the removal of two of the Supreme Court’s seven judges.

Also included in the amendments was the division of the nine-member High Court into three regional branches, with only the Malé branch allowed to hear challenges to laws and regulations.

Speaking at a party rally last weekend, Nasheed suggested the president had been attempting to strike a deal regarding the charges related to Abdulla Mohamed’s detention. “I am the bad guy,” he reminded the president.

Last November, Nasheed also told the press that the judge’s detention had been wrong, blaming his former defense minister Tholhath Ibrahim for the decision.

Nasheed has appealed at the High Court against the legitimacy of the Hulhumalé Magistrates bench – assembled by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – saying that judges on the bench on cases must be appointed by the senior judge of the court, arguing that such decisions were beyond the remit of the judicial watchdog.

He has also questioned 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 require a separate Magistrates Court.

Other critics of the court included then-JSC members Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman and former Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid, who argued that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul, noted at the time 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 to rule in appeal on Hulhumale’ court legitimacy

Hulhumale’ Court rejects case against former President Nasheed

High Court invalidates Hulhumale’ court’s rejection of case against former president

Supreme Court declares Hulhumale Magistrate Court legitimate

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Justice Ali Hameed appointed to the Judicial Service Commission

Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed has been appointed to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) by President Abdulla Yameen.

A media official from the judicial watchdog confirmed that Hameed would replace JSC President Justice Adam Mohamed, who resigned on Sunday (January 18) citing personal reasons.

Last year, the JSC cleared Hameed of misconduct charges, citing lack of evidence to support his alleged appearance in three sex tapes involving three different foreign women, which went viral in mid-2013.

Former JSC member and outspoken proponent of judicial reform Aishath Velezinee said Hameed’s “appointment to the JSC by the consensus of Supreme Court judges shows how low the courts have fallen”.

The commission voted against suspending Hameed last year, citing a lack of evidence, while the Maldives Police Service – which launched its own investigation – told the press that they been unable to determine if the man seen fornicating with the women was Hameed.

In its ruling last year, the JSC noted that the police had closed its own investigation into the case, and that the tape may constitute an act of espionage as it appeared to have been filmed by an unauthorised body, noting that it is against the Constitution to obtain evidence by unlawful means.

Corruption charges filed against the Supreme Court judge were also stalled last year after key documents were said to have been destroyed by a coffee spill at the Criminal Court.

Velezinee today described Ali Hameed as a puppet to the current regime saying: “Any judge who doesn’t deliver as directed will be subjected to action by the JSC. Ali Hameed has got a noose on his own neck – the sex tapes. The government can pull any time.”

“This compromises the independence of the judiciary as the old system would now prevail,” added Velezinee, stating that the current government would now be able to control the decisions of the courts.

The ten member JSC includes representatives from High Court, the trial courts, the People’s Majlis, the public (appointed by the Majlis), the attorney general, the chair of the Civil Service Commission, the Majlis speaker, a presidential appointee, a practising lawyer, and a Supreme Court judge nominated by his peers.

The appointment comes less than a month after the JSC found Hameed’s fellow judges on the Supreme Court – Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan – unfit to continue to serve on the bench in a ruling made available to neither the public nor MPs.

The secrecy of the decision did not prevent the Majlis voting to remove the pair three days later (December 14), in a move described as having “severely jeopardised” the country’s judicial independence by Commonwealth groups.

The Civil Court and several prominent lawyers also condemned the JSC’s recommendation to remove the judges, saying that the People’s Majlis had “forced” the JSC to deem Faiz and Adnan unfit for the bench without due process, through an “unconstitutional” amendment to the Judicature Act.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and lawyers Gabriela Knaul also expressed serious concern over the decision, saying that it would “have a chilling effect on the work of the judiciary at all levels”.

In a 2013 report, Knaul noted that political polarisation in the Maldives had meant that the “commission has allegedly been subjected to all sorts of external influence and has consequently been unable to function properly”.


Related to this story

JSC President Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla resigns

Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed cleared of misconduct in sex tape scandal

Two more sex videos of Supreme Court judge leaked

Police suspend investigations into Supreme Court judge’s sex scandal

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC President Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla resigns

Judicial Service Commission (JSC) President Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla has resigned from the commission (January 18).

A JSC press statement released today explained that the Supreme Court justice had submitted his letter of resignation, saying that Adam Mohamed had requested to be excused, citing personal circumstances.

He has been a member of the JSC since 2010, when he joined as a High Court judge.

The resignation comes less than a month after the JSC found Adam Mohamed’s fellow judges on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan, unfit to continue to serve on the bench, in a ruling made available to neither the public nor MPs.

The secrecy of the decision did not prevent the Majlis voting to remove the pair three days later, in a move described as having “severely jeopardised” the country’s judicial independence by Commonwealth groups.

The Civil Court and several prominent lawyers also condemned the JSC’s recommendation to remove the judges, saying that the People’s Majlis had “forced” the JSC to deem Faiz and Adnan unfit for the bench without due process, through an “unconstitutional” amendment to the Judicature Act.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and lawyers Gabriela Knaul also expressed serious concern over the removal of the judges saying that the decision will “have a chilling effect on the work of the judiciary at all levels”.

In a 2013 report, Knaul observed that the JSC had a “complicated” relationship with the judiciary due to competing claims with the Prosecutor General’s Office over jurisdiction regarding complaints against judges.

Knaul noted that political polarisation in the country had meant that the “commission has allegedly been subjected to all sorts of external influence and has consequently been unable to function properly”.

Adam Mohamed himself faced a number of challenges from within the commission during his tenure as president, with commission member Shuaib Abdul Rahman filing no-confidence motions against him in 2013.

Rahman accused Mohamed of failing to back the JSC’s investigation of Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed’s sex-tape scandal, and of abusing his power to release press statements on behalf of the commission.


Related to this story

Majlis removes Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Justice Muthasim Adnan from Supreme Court

Removal of Supreme Court judges will have “chilling effect” on work of judiciary: UN special rapporteur

A justice system in crisis: UN Special Rapporteur’s report

JSC rejects no-confidence motion against Chair Adam Mohamed

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dismissed Supreme Court Judges to receive extensive privileges

Former Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and former Justice Muthasim Adnan, dismissed due to the reduction of the Supreme Court bench to five judges, are to receive extensive privileges according to a new regulation compiled by the Supreme Court.

The regulations on the privileges of judges who retire with honor awards the two judges financial benefits, security officers, a car and a driver, medical insurance in the Maldives, SAARC, and ASEAN countries, and VIP services at state offices.

The financial benefits are dependent on the length of their service to the state.

They are to receive half of their salary for a period of service of 20 years, two-thirds for a service period between 20 and 25 years, and three-quarters for over 25 years of service.

The state is to bear expenses for the driver and fuel for the car.

Faiz and Muthasim are to be addressed with the title of ‘Justice Retired’. They will be given the title at a special ceremony, the regulations said.

Faiz and Muthasim’s sudden dismissal in December garnered international condemnation, with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers saying their removal would have “a chilling effect on the work of the judiciary at all levels”.

The People’s Majlis removed the two judges after revising the Judicature Act to reduce the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five.

The watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) promptly selected Faiz and Adnan for dismissal, though the reasons for their selection were not shared with MPs who subsequently voted to dismiss both on December 14.

Critics have said the removal contravened Article 154 of the Maldives Constitution that says a judge can only be removed if the JSC finds them guilty of gross misconduct or incompetence.

The rapporteur has called for a reconsideration of the pair’s removal, noting that it had been characterised by a “lack of transparency and due process”.

“The fact that the grounds for removal were not publicized is particularly unacceptable,” added Knaul in a December 22 statement.

Commonwealth organisations said the move had “severely jeopardised” the independence of the judiciary, while the International Commission of Jurists said the “astonishingly arbitrary” decision had “effectively decapitated the country’s judiciary”.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had challenged the legality of the JSC’s recommendation to dismiss the judges at the Civil Court, but the Supreme Court took control of the case.

Three lawyers also mounted a challenge to the Judicature Act revisions at the High Court, but the registrar threw the case out claiming the the original jurisdiction lay with the apex court.

The lawyers have re-submitted the case at the High Court, arguing the Supreme Court bench had a conflict of interest in the case.

The MDP meanwhile expelled MP Reeko Moosa Manik from the party and ordered five MPs to apologise for their absence from the vote on the judges’ dismissal. The party had issued a three-line whip.

Moosa has since said he refused to support Faiz after the chief justice had caused significant harm to the party in recent years, not least for his swearing in of Dr Mohamed Waheed as president following the controversial resignation of Mohamed Nasheed in February 2012.


Related to this story

Removal of Supreme Court judges will have “chilling effect” on work of judiciary: UN special rapporteur

Majlis removes Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz, Justice Muthasim Adnan from Supreme Court

ICJ says Majlis has “decapitated the country’s judiciary”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former President Maumoon “saddened” over Judge Shujoon’s resignation

Ruling Progressive Party of Maldives leader Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has expressed sadness over the resignation of Civil Court Judge Aisha Shujoon.

A tweet posted yesterday by the former president read that he was “saddened by the resignation of Judged Aishath Shujoon one of the first two women judges I had pleasure of appointing in 2007”.

Haveeru reported Shujoon gave her letter of resignation to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on Monday (December 29).

Shujoon, a founding member of Maldivian Democracy Network, was recently re-elected to UN subcommittee on the prevention of torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment.

Earlier this month, the seven member Civil Court bench condemned the removal of two Supreme Court Judges, including the chief justice, saying the JSC was “forced” to deem the two judges unfit for the bench through an “unconstitutional” amendment to the Judicature Act.

A subsequent case challenging the decision was removed from the Civil Court’s jurisdiction by the Supreme Court.

In February, JSC launched an investigation into Shujoon after she announced on state television that she was once offered a US$5 million bribe, which she refused.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Reeko Moosa condemns MDP expulsion as a move to bar his 2018 presidential candidacy

Deputy Speaker of the Majlis MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik has condemned his expulsion from the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), describing the move as a plot by former President Mohamed Nasheed to bar him from contesting the party’s 2018 presidential primaries.

“I am certain the expulsion was to bar me from contesting the presidential primaries. President Nasheed must accept there are other political leaders within the party,” Moosa told Minivan News today.

Moosa, a founding member of the MDP and a vocal critic of the 30-year authoritarian ruler Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, announced his intent to contest MDP’s 2018 presidential primaries on October 25.

The MDP’s disciplinary committee expelled Moosa on Monday after he repeatedly breached the party’s three-line whips including the vote on the 2015 state budget, the amendments to the Judicature Act – which reduced the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges, and the removal of former Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and former Justice Muthasim Adnan.

If Moosa wishes to rejoin the party, he is required to issue a public apology and obtain 50 new members for the party, but he will be barred from standing for any leadership position or contesting in party primaries for five years.

He described the disciplinary committee’s decision as “undemocratic” and “discriminatory” pointing out that five MDP MPs who were absent from the vote to dismiss the Supreme Court judges were given lesser penalties.

Moosa said he does not trust the party’s appeal process, and said he has now requested the Elections Commission to review the decision.

He also dismissed local media reports which had suggested he may join the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM): “I will not sign onto another party. I am not one who can be part of another party. Where will I go other than the MDP? There is no second ideology that can fight against the dictatorship.”

Dictatorial

Moosa, a prominent figure in the Maldives’ pro-democracy movement, said a faction within the MDP has continued to harass him on social media since he announced his intent to contest the presidential primaries.

“I did not think they would expel me. I did not think [the party] would treat me so badly. I’ve served MDP with sincerity. On February 8, I was severely brutalised while acting as a bodyguard to Nasheed,” he said.

Moosa had to be flown to Sri Lanka for medical treatment for injuries sustained during a brutal police crackdown on MDP supporters a day after Nasheed’s ouster on February 7, 2012.

He described Nasheed as dictatorial, claiming the former president had systematically sidelined rivals within the party including Dr Mohamed Munawar, Dr Ibrahim Didi, and former MP Alhan Fahmy.

“Nasheed is a green dictator, championing the environment to get attention on the international front, but look at what he has done to Dr Munawaar, Dr Didi and Alhan Fahmy. He wants to keep the MDP under his control,” he said.

On Monday, a group of ten Moosa supporters staged a protest outside Nasheed’s residence, Kenereege, calling the MP’s expulsion “unfair”.

Moosa suggested Nasheed was behind the rumour that he may join PPM the next day.

“There are a lot of members who support me within the MDP. The rumour that I would join the PPM on the next day at a ceremony at Nasandhura Palace Hotel at noon, at a time when I was out of country, was engineered to make my supporters believe I would leave the MDP and thereby dissipate their criticism of the party’s decision,” he said.

The news was first reported in pro-government newspaper Vaguthu and later on opposition-aligned Raajje TV.

Breach

Explaining his decision not to participate in the vote to dismiss Faiz and Muthasim, Moosa said the former chief justice had caused enormous harm to the MDP.

On Nasheed’s resignation on February 7, Faiz had sworn in then Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed “without raising a single question on whether Nasheed was coerced,” Moosa said.

During Faiz’s tenure, the Supreme Court bench had stripped three MDP MPs of their membership and annulled the first round of presidential elections held in September 2013, he continued.

The Supreme Court’s removal of former Elections Commission President Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz in March was a deliberate attempt to “damage MDP’s chances in parliamentary polls,” Moosa said.

“But that day [December 14], MDP came out to defend Faiz. I did not participate in the vote because I do not support Faiz. I do support Muthasim, but their names were put up together for a single vote. I did not want to remove Muthasim,” he explained.

He also criticised the party’s three-line whip calling on MPs to be present at the sitting, claiming a whip can only be issued on the vote itself, not on MPs presence at the Majlis.

He contended the MDP had failed to take action against MPs Eva Abdulla, Abdulla Shahid, and Rozaina Adam for their absence from the vote on the Special Economic Zone bill. Eva and Shahid had been in Geneva for a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union at the time.

Moosa also condemned Minivan News’ inclusion of a Raajje TV report on his company Heavy Load Pvt Ltd receiving islands for resort development in compensation for a terminated reclamation deal in its previous report on his expulsion from MDP.

He did confirm that Heavy Load Pvt Ltd has received islands, but said the deal was a transaction between the company and the government after the company threatened to file charges at the court for the termination.

The MDP has said the sudden removal of the two Supreme Court Judges is an attempt to stack the judiciary in President Abdulla Yameen’s favour.

Commonwealth groups have described the judges’ removal as unconstitutional, saying it constituted a clear breach of the Commonwealth Principles to which the government of Maldives has subscribed.

“As a result the independence of the judiciary and the Rule of Law have been “severely jeopardised”.

The International Commission of Jurists said the Maldivian parliament and executive “have effectively decapitated the country’s judiciary and trampled on the fundamental principles of the rule of law and separation of powers in a democratic State.”


Related to this story

MDP expels MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik

MDP calls on six MPs absent from Supreme Court vote to answer disciplinary charges

Reeko Moosa unveils plans to contest 2018 presidential primary

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)