Tag: supreme court

“No legal barrier” to implement Nexbis system: immigration controller

Controller of Immigration and Emigration Dr Mohamed Ali has said there is “no legal barrier” preventing the implementation of a border control system (BCS) developed by Malaysia-based security solutions firm Nexbis.

Dr Ali told Minivan News today Nexbis could continue with introduction of a new biometric BCS system after the Supreme Court in June invalidated a High Court injunction blocking work on the project in May.

The controller made his comments after Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed maintained calls in local media to halt the BCS installation, citing allegations of corruption involving the deal.

Dr Jameel claimed a letter requesting work on the project to cease in line with the recommendations of Attorney General Aishath Azima Shakoor and the country’s Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) had been sent to the immigration controller.

“The government is also of the same view pertaining to the continuation of the project. We urge the project be taken forward with the recommendations of the AG and the ACC. As far as I’m aware, it is the stand of the government,” he was quoted as saying by Haveeru.

President’s Office spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza was not responding to calls at the time of press regarding the comments attributed to Dr Jameel.

The legal dispute between the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and Nexbis escalated last week after the High Court ordered police to investigate claims made to the ACC that Chief Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef met officials from the company in Bangkok.

The dispute concerns the deployment of a border control system, specifically the installation of an electronic border gate system in Male’s Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), bringing technological upgrades such as facial recognition, fingerprint identification and e-gates to the Maldives.

The Rf500 million (US$39 million) deal had stalled after the ACC alleged corruption in the bidding process, leading to a ongoing series of high-profile court battles and delays that led the Malaysian firm to threaten legal action against the Maldivian government should it incur losses for the work already done on the project.

In May 2012, the project was brought to a standstill by a High Court injunction and a raid on immigration offices by ACC staff. At the time the Rf10 million (US$650,000) first phase of the border control project had been completed, according to local media reports.

Speaking today, Immigration Controller Dr Ali claimed that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision to overrule the injunction, Nexbis had continued its work to install the system from where it had previously been halted.

“In the absence of a legal order and unless I get a decision from the cabinet, there is nothing that I can do on this issue,” he said. “The government wanted a biometric system to stop the smuggling and trafficking of people.”

Dr Ali added that with the Maldives having already signed up to conventions pledging to try and more effectively combat Transnational Organised Crime like human trafficking, new systems were needed to help meet these aims.

“From our own experience, we have found people being trafficked back into the country even after they have previously been deported,” the controller claimed.  “A system like this should put a stop to that.”

Trafficking concerns

The Maldives last month featured in the US State Department’s Tier Two Watch List for Human Trafficking for the third year in a row.

Having “not demonstrated evidence of increasing efforts to address human trafficking over the previous year”, the country only narrowly avoided a descent to Tier 3 – the worst category – after presenting a written plan on its commitments, claimed a corresponding US State Department report.

According to the report, implementation of the government’s written plan, “would constitute making significant efforts to meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Lawyer Najeeb murdered: Supreme court and AG call for action as public demand death penalty

The judiciary and authorities have come to high alert after prominent Lawyer Ahmed Najeeb was found brutally murdered on Sunday night.

Police were called to second floor apartment in Maafanu Masroora house in the capital Male’ at around 6:45pm yesterday evening, where they found 65 year-old Najeeb’s body inside a large dustbin, gagged, badly beaten up and stabbed multiple times.

According to eye witnesses, his face was lobotomised with a knife beyond recognition, and a blade was found stuck underneath his chin.

Though police have not revealed details of the case they have confirmed that a suspect, identified as 29 year-old Ahmed Murrath, has been arrested in connection to the murder. His 18 year-old girlfriend is also also being questioned by the police, according to some media reports.

Murrath, who is registered as residing at the house where lawyer’s body was found, is reported to be a convicted criminal released under the former government’s Second Chance Program, under which over 300 inmates incarcerated for drug offences were conditionally released.

Devastated family members of Najeeb and friends were seen crying at Indira Ghandi Memorial Hospital (IGMH) last night as the hospital official conducted the medical examination of the body.

“He was so badly beaten up and stabbed. Everyone is so shocked and devastated. He is a very nice and kind man. Why would someone to something so horrible?” said a relative of  the victim.

According to early reports, Najeeb was providing legal counsel in dividing the house, Masroora, between its heirs. Police have yet to give confirmation of this.

He is scheduled to be buried after Asru prayer this evening.

Judiciary on alert

Meanwhile, Najeeb’s background as a lawyer and writer has prompted both Attorney General Aishath Azima Shakoor and the apex court to take the unprecedented step of issuing statements condemning the murder.

He is the sixth victim to be killed this year, while several others have been brutally injured in a spate of gang violence across capital Male’ and atolls.

The Supreme Court said that “attacks against lawyers will not be tolerated” and that it takes every necessary measure to provide protection and security to lawyers.

“Crimes like these are committed with utter disregard to dignity entitled to the people, and are beyond the boundaries of humanity. When such crimes occur, the whole society plunges into fear and chaos,” the statement read.

Therefore, it adds, taking action against the attacker responsible for Najeeb’s murder is necessary for both public security and peace.

The Attorney General’s Office meanwhile echoed the apex court’s statement, emphasising that lawyers today are serving in an “increasingly dangerous environment.”

The AG’s Office reported that Azima made clear the need for prompt actions to make sure such crimes are not repeated.

Calls for death penalty grows

Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, speaking at a press conference today, repeated his call for a decision on the implementation of the death penalty in relation to such crimes.

“We want death for death,” a crowd gathered near IGMH last night shouted, as Najeeb’s body was brought to the ambulance.

In recent times gang violence, burglary, mugging, sexual abuse of children and murders are increasing to levels of alarming concern in society, and the rise in criminal-related death tolls have provoked public pressure to implement the death penalty or capital punishment in the Maldives.

Under Islamic Sharia, the death penalty is the punishment of a murderer (one who kills deliberately) and that he is to be killed in retaliation (Qisaas) unless the victim’s next of kin let him off or agree to accept the ‘Diyah’ (blood money).

Although death sentences are issued by courts in the Maldives, traditionally those sentences a commuted to life imprisonment under the power vested in the President.

From January 2001 to December 2010, a total of 14 people were sentenced to death by the courts, and none from them have been executed. The last person to be executed in the Maldives after receiving a death sentence was in 1953 during the first republican President Mohamed Ameen. Hakim Didi was charged with attempting to assassinate President Ameen using black magic.

Following  reports of the murder, the government-aligned Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM)’s parliament group member Ahmed Mahloof  proposed an amendment to the Clemency Act (Act no 2/2010) which would make performing the death penalty mandatory in the event it was upheld by the Supreme Court.

His amendment would require the President to enforce any death penalty if the Supreme Court issued the verdict of death, or if the Supreme Court supported the ruling of the death penalty made by either the Criminal court or the High Court. This move would halt the current practice of the President commuting such sentences to life imprisonment.

Previously, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Rasheed and later MP Ibrahim Muthalib also submitted similar amendments to the clemency act although both subsequently withdrew the motions.

“I believe nobody would want to die. So if the death penalty is enforced, a person who is to commit a murder would clearly know that if he carries out the act, his punishment would be his life. I believe this will deter him from committing such acts,” Mahloof said following the submission of the amendment.

In the Initial Report of Maldives under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prepared by Human Rights Commission (HRCM) in 2011, the commission noted that growing public sentiment to impose death penalty.

But implementing death penalty may not be as easy as it sounds.

According to the commission, the Maldives has affirmed the UN Resolution of Moratorium on death penalty on 18 December 2007, which emphasises all states that still provision capital punishment “progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed.”

“This resolution still needs to be passed by the parliament” it reads.

Furthermore, there are several laws pending which are related to the enforcement of the death penalty including, the passage of the revised Penal Code, Criminal Procedures Code, Evidence Bill and Witness Act, the commission adds.

The Maldives is yet to establish an independent forensic institution to provide accurate information to support the judiciary to make an impartial decision on matters concerning the administration of the death penalty.

Meanwhile the commission acknowledged that the “life threatening acts of crime in the country have been aggravated” due to a number of direct and indirect factors, of which the direct problems include “inadequate legislation pertaining the criminal justice system”.

The existing Penal Code which was enforced in 1981 and its last amendment made in 200 has many parts which are not relevant to the present context and does not reflect the spirit of the present Constitution.

Moreover,the commission identifies the  inadequate legislations pertaining to evidence and witnesses, dismissal of forensic evidence by courts, absence  of  a witness protection program and inadequate correctional and rehabilitation system for convicted offenders as key factors.

“The lack of a comprehensive integrated crime prevention mechanism remains the greatest weakness in addressing the issue of increase in crime. High numbers of unemployed youth, and the persistent substance abuse and drug addiction among youth in the country are indirect factors catalysing the increase in crime,” the HRCM report adds.

Therefore, to address the above, says the HRCM, the “state should revise the existing Penal Code, and bring into force the Criminal Procedure Code – the other legislation pertaining to evidence and witnesses.”

“The State should further establish effective rehabilitation mechanisms for offenders, better prisons and correctional facilities to house and to rehabilitate criminals, and to strengthen effective coordination between drug rehabilitation system and criminal justice system,” it concludes.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court ruling on Nexbis “doesn’t make sense”: Immigration controller

The case concerning the Nexbis border control system has grown increasingly complex this week after the Supreme Court deemed that the High Court bench which had ordered work on the project to be stopped had been unlawfully reconstituted, thereby nullifying its decision.

Reports in the local media say that the recently appointed Immigration Controller Mohamed Ali intends to seek his own legal guidance on the Supreme Court’s decision, claiming that he can make no sense of the decision.

“We don’t have a lawyer. I’m not a lawyer either. I can’t make any sense of it. Hence I’m trying to make sense of the Supreme Court’s order,” Ali told Haveeru.

The nullified decision relates to the High Court’s order to halt any further work being completed on the project whilst the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) appealed a ruling from the Civil Court that it could not order the termination of the project.

Local media have referred to the Supreme Court’s order as a ‘Mandamus’. Often termed a ‘writ of mandate’, this kind of order instructs a governmental body to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do so.

Meanwhile, Haveeru has reported that the ACC intends to investigate the relationship between Cheif Judge Ahmed Shareef and officials from the Nexbis company, after receiving a letter alleging a meeting in Bangkok.

Shareef was dismissed from the bench during aforementioned reconstitution deemed illegal by the Supreme Court.

The Immigration Controller told Haveeru that the project cannot move forward until legal experts have reviewed the latest decision by the Supreme Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Lawyers hold crisis meeting over new Supreme Court regulation

Top lawyers in the Maldives held a crisis meeting last night at the SHE Building to discuss the Supreme Court’s new “Regulation on Lawyers practicing law in the courts of Maldives” which demand that lawyers must to be registered to a court in order to be able to represent their clients in it.

Article 2.2 of the said regulation states: “Anyone who can represent in any court of law in the Maldives, shall be a person who has the license to practice law in the country, and shall also be registered accordingly as a lawyer in the given court to practice law.”

The regulation also restricts lawyers from openly criticising the discrepancies that take place within the courts.

The lawyers expressed concerns over the regulation citing that it would impose “difficulties for lawyers to represent their clients”.

The meeting was attended by senior lawyers of the country including the former Attorney General Abdulla Muiz, Deputy Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem and MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, formed a sub-committee to work on behalf of the lawyers to amend the regulation.

Local news website Sun Online quoted an attendee as stating that the lawyers had identified a lot of difficulties with the new regulation.

“We decided to meet and discuss with the authorities regarding the regulations. This is something that all lawyers agreed was necessary,” he said.

One of the main concerns raised by the lawyers regarding the new regulations were that if they were to represent their clients in island magistrate courts, they would need to register in the given island magistrate court prior to appearing in the court.

Given the difficulty of transportation to islands, their concerns were that it could put in a further burden on lawyers to go to the island and register there.

With the new regulation, the Civil Court, the Criminal Court and the Juvenile Court have opened the opportunity for lawyers to register in the courts.

An MDP lawyer who took part in the discussion said the meeting was closed and would not reveal details of the discussion.

However, Minivan News understands that the lawyers are proposing to amend certain sections of the regulations, particularly the requirements that the lawyers register in island magistrate courts.

Speaking to Minivan News, Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitutional Assembly that drafted the current constitution of the Maldives, Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail, said he believed that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to make such a regulation.

He also said that Supreme Court cannot have a say on the procedures of other courts, which he believed was interfering with the jurisdiction of those courts, and that it was not a duty of the Supreme Court to decide the rules that lawyers have to follow.

“If you look into other democratic countries, the matters relating to the lawyers are administered by a bar association. At the moment we do not have a bar association, but I remember that it was the Attorney General (AG)’s office that has been issuing the license to practice law and maintaining a lawyer’s database. It should be the AG who makes such a regulation,” he said.

The Attorney General’s office is currently headed by Azima Shukoor, formerly lawyer to President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Regarding the article 2.2 of the regulation, Ismail stated that he believed that once a lawyer gets his license to practice law in the country, he should be able to practice it without further obstruction.

Ismail also criticised the stipulation which demands lawyers not openly criticise the courts, describing it as limiting the fundamental right of freedom of expression in the constitution. Only legislation from the parliament could do so, he said.

“What they are trying to do is to cover up the mouths that speak of the [court’s] discrepancies. They know that when a lawyer speaks about the problems in the court, people will believe them more than when a politician does,” he said.

“I have always warned that the Supreme Court is slowly trying to exceed its mandate by interfering with the powers of other institutions. This regulation is just another step of that process,” he said.

The regulation would at the end of the day cause difficulties for ordinary people in obtaining legal representation, he said, and particularly impact the ability of islanders to receive justice.

“We have a very limited number of lawyers, and most of them live the capital Male’. If a person living on an island wants the services of a lawyer for a case going on in his island magistrate court, what will he do if there are no lawyers registered in that magistrate court?” he questioned.

“At the end of the day it is going to be the ordinary people who will suffer from such a regulation,” he said.

Ismail has been a vocal critic on the discrepancies of the courts and was previously reprimanded by the Supreme Court for calling on the public to “rise up and sort out the judges”, at a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally in Kaafu Thulusdhoo on September last year.

He was later summoned to police for questioning after the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) requested the former Male’ MP be investigated.

When Minivan News contacted the Supreme Court, the officials refused to answer any questions, and demanded that any inquiries be send in an official letter. Once they received it, they would look into it, the court said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State appeals High Court ruling favouring Sultans of the Seas in US$8.5 million fraud case

The state has appealed a High Court judgment overruling a Civil Court verdict ordering luxury yachting company Sultans of the Seas to pay Rf110.2 million (US$7.1 million) in fines and unpaid duties.

In September 2009, Maldives Custom Service filed a case at the Civil Court to recover US$8.5 million in fines and unpaid customs duties from Sultans of the Seas – a company associated with the family of Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Leader and Kendhoo MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali – for allegedly defrauding customs to evade import duties for two luxury yachts.

At a press conference in June 2009, Director of Customs Abdul Rasheed Ibrahim revealed that Sultans evaded import duties for two Italian Azimut yachts, imported in December 2007 and March 2008.

“In the invoices, they said they purchased two used launches,” Rasheed explained, adding that an investigation by the customs internal audit discovered that Sultans had purchased two of Azimut’s latest models, which cost 12.3 million euros or Rf226 million (US$17.7 million).

However, the quoted price in the invoices and documents the company submitted to customs was Rf18 million (US$1.4 million).

While the Civil Court ruled in favour of customs in late 2009, the High Court overruled the verdict late last year.

According to local daily Haveeru, at the first Supreme Court hearing last Monday, State Attorney Ahmed Usham explained that the state decided to appeal the High Court ruling because the evidence was sufficient to establish fraud as documents submitted by Sultans claimed that the vessels were used when the two luxury speedboats were brand new.

The fraud was discovered when information was clarified through the Bank of Maldives Plc Ltd (BML), Usham added.

Sultan’s attorney Ibrahim Riza however argued that Sultans should not be held responsible for the actions of the former collector of customs and insisted that the Bank of Maldives documents did not clearly state that the vessels were new.

Adjourning the hearing, Justice Ali Hameed said a further hearing would only be held if the court wished to clarify certain matters after studying the appeal.

In May this year, former Principal Collector of Customs Ibrahim Shafiu, also ex-registrar of DRP until the 2008 presidential election, was charged with corruption for his role in the Sultans fraud case.

Shafiu had been living in Canada since former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s election defeat and returned to the Maldives following the controversial transfer of power in February.

Shafiu was charged with abuse of authority for allegedly helping change details of the yachts through his influence over the valuation committee to decrease duty payable for the vessels. The former DRP registrar pleaded not guilty to the charges.

BML loans

Gayoom and ThasmeenMeanwhile in October 2011, the High Court upheld Civil Court verdicts ordering Mahandhoo Investments and Kabalifaru Investments – two resort businesses with close ties to DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and running mate of former President Gayoom in 2008 – to repay millions of dollars worth of loans to the Bank of Maldives.

DRP MP Mohamed Nashiz, brother of the DRP leader and managing director of Kabaalifaru, and DRP MP Ali Azim, a loan guarantor, were among the appellants at the High Court.

Both MPs had signed ‘joint and several guarantee and indemnity’ agreements for the loans issued in mid-2008.

In the first case involving Mahandhoo Investments, BML had issued a US$23.5 million demand loan, a US$103,200 bank guarantee and US$30,090 letter of credit on July 10, 2008.

The second case meanwhile involved a US$3.3 million loan issued to Kabaalifaru Investment and the appeal of a Civil Court verdict on September 30, 2009 ordering the company to settle the debt in the next 12 months.

Both verdict were however appealed at the High Court and remained stalled for almost two years before the rulings in October 2011.

Moreover, in December 2009, the Civil Court ordered Sultans of the Seas to pay over Rf654 million (US$50 million) in unpaid loans, fines and accumulated interest to the Bank of Maldives in the course of one year.

Ruling in favour of the bank, Judge Aisha Shujoon said the company was liable for loans of US$15.3 million, US$8.7 million and €12.5 million as well as US$500,000 in combined credit limit facilities as agreed upon in June 2008.

The judge ruled that records and documents presented to court proved that as of December 7, 2009, Sultans owes US$18 million on the first demand loan, US$10 million on the second and €14 million on the third.

In a BML audit report released in January 2009, Auditor General Ibrahim Naeem warned that defaults on bank loans issued to influential political players could jeopardise the entire financial system of the country.

Over 60 per cent of the US$633 million worth of loans issued in 2008 was granted to 12 parties, the report noted.

According to the report, US$45 million was issued to Sultans of the Seas and US$36 million to Fonnadhoo Tuna Products, two loans which comprised 13 per cent of the total loans issued in 2008.

The report noted that Fonaddhoo was owned by DRP Leader Thasmeen while the owners of Sultans of the Seas were closely associated with the former minority leader of parliament.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Stop buying iPads, computers and phones, ACC tells government

The Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) has ordered the Finance Ministry to cancel plans to buy computers, iPads and phones for government ministries, claiming that only the People’s Majlis can approve ministerial salaries and benefits.

The Finance Ministry on April 30 released a circular approving the purchase of mobile phones, computers, and iPads for ministers from state funds allocated to the respective ministries. Furthermore, the finance ministry said the treasury would cover up to Rf 4000 (US$260) in monthly payments for ministers’ phone bills.

However, the ACC has told the Finance Ministry that no state institution could approve salaries and benefits for its staff, claiming that the task fell under Majlis’ jurisdiction.

“Article 102 of the Constitution authorizes the People’s Majlis to allocate salaries and benefits for the President, Vice-President, Judges, Members of Parliament and staff of the state institutions. Instead of state institutions deciding for themselves on matters within Majlis jurisdiction, we have ordered the Finance Ministry on May 7 to approve such benefits through the Majlis,” an ACC statement read.

“We would like to remind you the Auditor General has repeatedly criticized such actions in his audit reports and called on state offices not to do so without Majlis authorization. Further, when this commission asked the Majlis for advice on phone allowances, the Majlis Finance Committee told us in a letter on 30 March 2011 to act according to the salary structure approved by the Majlis on 28 December 2011 until the Majlis decides otherwise,” the statement noted.

The Auditor General Ibrahim Niyaz last week released a report on the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) noting that between October 2008 and December 2011, Supreme Court judges had paid their phone bills amounting to RF 281,519 (US$18,280) from the state budget, despite the fact that the parliament had not allocated phone allowances to the judges.

Niyaz has recommended the amount be reimbursed and that the granting of phone allowances be determined by the parliament.

The Supreme Court on 16 May 2011  released a statement claiming that no Supreme Court judge had received phone allowances, after local media accused judges of misappropriating state funds for phone allowances.

Meanwhile, Chief of the IMF mission in the Maldives, Jonathan Dunn, warned parliament in April that if the country does not reduce its expenditure, it risks running out of reserves and miring the country in poverty.

Furthermore, the Majlis Finance Committee last week has projected that the Maldives budget deficit will reach 27 percent of the GDP by the end of year 2012, a 175 percent increase on earlier forecasts.

Government spending in 2012 is expected to increase by almost 24 percent, reaching Rf17.45 billion (US$1.13 billion) at the end of the 2012, while government revenue for 2012 will be Rf2.6 billion (US$168.6 million) less than the projected amount of Rf10.87 billion (US$704 million) – a 23 percent plunge.

With the shortfall of revenue and increased government spending, Head of the Majlis’s Financial Committee, Deputy Speaker and People’s Alliance (PA) MP Ahmed Nazim observed that the budget deficit will exceed from Rf 3.9 billion (US$ 252 million) to Rf9.1 billion this year (US$590 million), amounting to 27 percent of the country’s GDP.

Finance committee member and MDP MP for Kulhudhufushi, Abdul Ghafoor Moosa, told reporters that unplanned spending on police and military personnel and planned reimbursement of civil servants pay cuts in 2010, are both significant causes for rising costs to the government.

He observed that the largest shortfall in revenue is a direct result of the US$135 million pulled out from the budget with new government’s recently revised policy on lease extension payments for resort islands.

Maldives Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA) anticipated receiving a total of Rf375 million (US$ 24 million) for lease extensions, however the income received dropped to Rf23 million (US$1.5 million) as a result of the decision to accept the lease extension fees in an annual installment instead of a lump sum as decided by former administration.

The loss of concession fees from Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), the result of a successful Civil Court case to block the Airport Development Charge (ADC) filed by the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) while it was in opposition, also saw the government receive only US$525,355 from the airport for the quarter, compared to the US$8.7 million it was expecting.

The government-aligned PA’s Deputy Leader Nazim however contended that the 23 percent drop in government income was caused by unrealised revenue from privatisation schemes and a shortfall of Rf 166.7 million and Rf435 million (US$28 million) from the projected dividends of Dhiraagu and import duties respectively.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court rules in favour of Gayoom appointees to the former parliament

Supreme Court has ruled in favour of eight appointees to the 16th parliament on 13 March 2012, citing that their removal was unconstitutional and ordered the salaries of these appointees be paid from the time of their removal until the new parliament convened.

Formerly, the Maldives’ parliament had eight appointees to the parliament by the president, according to the old constitution. When former President Mohamed Nasheed was sworn in to the office, he removed the eight MPs appointed by his predecessor Gayoom and replaced them with his own set of appointees. This was before the parliament was elected under the new constitution. The election took place on March 9, 2009.

The removed appointees argued that their removal was against the newly ratified constitution of 2008’s article 294 and had initially filed the case in Supreme Court on 12 November 2008, by MP Rozaina Adam and MP Ahmed Mahloof, both who are currently sitting elected MPs.

The article 294 clause (a) of the constitution which is under the ‘Transitional Matters’ chapter states: “The People’s Majlis [Parliament] in existence at the commencement of this Constitution shall continue until such time as the first elections of the People’s Majlis under this Constitution are held, and election of members and assumption of office by the members.”

However the case was later sent to the Civil Court and the court ruled in favor of Nasheed’s government stating the president had the authority to remove the members and appoint his own until the first parliamentary elections is held under the ratified constitution.

The case was later appealed in the High Court on January 4, 2009. The High Court also supported the Civil Court’s verdict and upheld the ruling on 08 February 2009.

The parties then filed to appeal the case to Supreme Court on April 12, 2009.

In the Supreme Court Ruling, a 3 to 2 majority decision was reached by the five member bench which consisted of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain, Justice Abdullah Saeed (former interim chief justice), Justice Abdullah Areef, Justice Ali Hameed Mohamed and Justice Dr Ahmed Abdullah Didi.

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain and Justice Abdullah Areef had a deferring opinion which was in support of the High Court Ruling.

Nasheed removed the appointees on 11 November 2008, just a few hours after he was sworn in.

With the Supreme Court ruling, the 8 MPs will now be paid the salary of an MP from the time of their removal until the next parliament was elected on May 9, 2009.

According to the parliament secretariat, salary of an MP at the time of the removal of appointees was RF 62,500 (USD 4053).

If the former MPs are to be paid according to the Supreme court ruling, they are entitled to get the salary of seven months which would be counted from the day they were removed (11 November 2008) to the convening of the first session of the 17th parliament (27 May 2009).

This means each of these parties would receive a sum of RF 437,500 (US$28,372).

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MMA accepts MDP MP Musthafa’s BCCI debt after the court rejected the money

The Civil Court has refused to accept payment of the debt it had ordered paid by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Musthafa, after the ruling against him was last week upheld by the Supreme Court.

The case had been filed against him by Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Deptuy Leader Umar Naseer, and the ruling meant that Musthafa was disqualified as an MP for the former ruling party, forcing a by-election in his seat of Thimarafushi.

Musthafa this morning sent a person to pay the debt to the court – a loan of US$31,231.66 (Rf 481,952) borrowed from the now defunct Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

The Civil Court has confirmed that a person had sought to pay the debt on Musthafa’s behalf, after the Supreme Court ruling did not mention that the money was to be paid to the former ‘Madhanee’, or Civil, Court.

Until President Nasheed signed the Judicature Act into law last year, the official name of the Civil Court had been Madhanee Court – ‘madhanee’ being the Arabic word for ‘civil’.

MDP MP Musthafa today told Minivan News that he had been trying to pay the money every day since losing the caase last Friday, but said the court had not accepted it.

‘’Today I thought I would inform that media and send someone to the court to pay the money, and the court did not accept it again,’’ Musthafa said. ‘’I wrote a letter to the court but they did not respond to it.’’

Later today, Musthafa said the Civil Court registrar had called him and met with him, and said the Supreme Court’s ruling did not specify who the recipient of the money was to be, and that the Civil Court did not know what they should do with it, Musthafa said.

‘’The Supreme Court told me to get assistance from the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) and the Attorney General,’’ he said. ‘’So then I sent the money to the MMA, and the MMA has received the money.’’

He also said that tomorrow he will file a case in the Civil Court asking the court to order the MMA to pay him the US$500,000 that the BCCI was obliged to pay Musthafa, in a separate case concerning the supply of meat and other goods.

‘’They have today proved that the MMA are the live parent of BCCI [despite BCCI being defunct],’’ he said. ‘’This is funny to me – because when they have to pay me something owed by BCCI, they deny they are the live parent, but when I have something to pay to BCCI they become the live parent of BCCI.’’

In November last year Musthafa threatened legal action against the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) if it did not pay the US$500,000 that BCCI owed his company Seafood International, alleging that the sum was due to be paid to his company according to a 1991 London court ruling.

Citing MMA as the “live branch of BCCI in the Maldives,” Musthafa previously stated that “the debt of a dead person has to be paid by a living legal parent.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Media accuses MNDF of abandoning Supreme Court guard duty

The Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) has not confirmed whether a decision was made last night to withdraw MNDF officers providing security to Supreme Court and High Courts, following allegations in the local media today.

MNDF Spokesperson Major Abdul Raheem told Minivan News that he had seen the media reports but was unable to confirm whether the claims were true.

‘’I have seen the media reports and tried to clarify the details of what happened,’’ Major Abdul Raheem said. ‘’But I have been unable to make sure it is true or incorrect.’’

State Defence Minister Muiz Adnan said he had no any information about the matter.

Judicial Services Commission (JSC) Chair and Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed refused to comment on the issue.

Local media reported that at 7:00pm last night MNDF officers watching over the outside gates of the Supreme Court left with the key to the gate.

Newspaper Haveeru reported that the keys were handed back to the Supreme Court last night and informed that they were taken by mistake.

This afternoon, the paper quoted an official of the JSC saying that MNDF officers had been watching the Supreme Court today.

“Around 10 people gathered outside the court and started shaking the east side gate. They left when the lock was broken,” the official told Haveeru.

Five hours after the MNDF officers left the court a group gathered outside the court and broke the lock of the court’s east gate, the paper reported.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)