Tag: supreme court

MP rejects authority of Criminal Court after judge releases armed “I was just cooking” civilian

Today’s Criminal Court hearing for a case involving ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for Thimmarafushi Mohamed Musthafa was cancelled after the MP refused to accept the court summons on the grounds that the court’s judges were unlawfully appointed.

Musthafa added that Thimarafushi island council had advised against his attending the hearing.

Musthafa’s comment came after the Criminal Court today ordered the release of a man arrested for carrying a knife as protesters spread throughout Male’ on Friday evening.

Hassan Areef, who has prior convictions for violence, was arrested in Henveiru ward by the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) before being handed over to police.

Appearing in court today, Areef claimed he had been preparing a meal using a butter knife when he went outside to see the commotion, unintentionally carrying the knife with him, according to local media.

The criminal court accepted Areef’s version and ordered his release. Police have announced their intention to appeal the verdict.

Meanwhile, in a letter to the court, Musthafa justified his refusal by citing President Mohamed Nasheed’s position that lower court judges were not appointed in accordance with Article 149 of the constitution, therefore their rulings held no legal weight.

According to Article 149, “A person appointed as a Judge in accordance with law, must possess the educational qualifications,  experience  and  recognised competence necessary to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a Judge, and must be of high moral character.”

The article further requires judges to be a Sunni Muslim of at least 25 years of age, who has not been convicted of an offence and is of sound mind.

Musthafa has been charged for bounced cheques.

The MP faces multiple charges of cheque fraud, notably over transactions made by his company Seafood International Pvt Ltd.

Citing deception by food supplier General Meat Ltd, Musthafa threatened legal action against the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) in November if it did not pay the US$500,000 that the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) owed Seafood International.

Musthafa alleged 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. If the MMA does not pay us within seven days we will sue the MMA in court and when we sue, we will ask the court to take the amount of money for the loss we have had for the past 20 years as a cause of not having this money.’’

Meanwhile, a case filed in 2009 by opposition Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Vice President Umar Naseer claims Musthafa must be removed from Parliament due to a decreed debt which is in violation of Article 73(c)1.

The Supreme Court was due to rule on a case against Musthafa on October 20, however proceedings were interrupted when MDP called for a nation-wide protest against the judiciary during an emergency meeting.

Speaking to Minivan News at the time, MDP MP and spokesperson for the party’s Parliamentary Group, Mohamed Shifaz, said judges had been blackmailed and that the party would protest the politicised judiciary indefinitely.

This month, the opposition took up the protest baton and demanded the release of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed from military detention. The Judge was arrested on January 16, 2012. Protestors have demonstrated against the government since that date.

Contending that the judge was lawfully arrested, the government has requested international legal assistance to resolve what has been labelled a “judicial crisis”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Chief Justice says lower judges lawfully appointed

Justice Ahmed Faiz has dismissed claims by President Mohamed Nasheed that lower court judges were unlawfully appointed and therefore their rulings need not be obeyed.

President Nasheed has also stated that he will withold the salaries of lower court judges.

Faiz has claimed that all judges were appointed and sworn in according to rules and regulations put forth by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) which is tasked with overseeing the judiciary.

Faiz added that the constitution awards the JSC the authority to decide if judges meet necessary criteria, and to decide on actions against those judges who do not meet these criteria.

According to local media Faiz stressed that only the Parliament can decide on issues relating to salaries and other benefits to the judges.

“The violation of such rules and regulations would result in the failure of democracy and rules of governance”, the Chief Justice added.

President’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair has countered that Faiz’s statements are prejudiced and do not carry any legal bearing.

Zuhair added that the President’s decision to withhold salaries is not final and is currently being “discussed”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP vows to pressure Supreme Court if it fails to investigate Abdulla Mohamed

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Vice President and MP Alhan Fahmy met on Sunday with Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Ahmed Faiz, presenting two cases against Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed and demanding the cases be concluded in 48 hours.

Before going to the meeting Alhan met with the press and said that he will present two cases relating to Abdulla Mohamed: one regarding the Civil Court’s ordering the judicial watchdog – the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) – to delay taking action in a judicial misconduct case against the chief judge, and a second regarding the High Court’s ruling that he did not have to obey police summons on January 16.

The latter ruling led to police requesting the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) assist in the arrest of Abdulla Mohamed, and his subsequent detention on the MNDF training facility of Girifushi where he remains.

Alhan told press outside the Supreme Court after meeting with the chief justice that the MDP would put pressure on the Supreme Court if it did not conduct the cases.

He then told a group of MDP supporters waiting for him outside that if the Supreme Court did not conclude the case in 48 hours, the MDP would “raise its voice”.

The whereabouts of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed following his arrest were not revealed until January 18. The MNDF has acknowledged receipt but not replied to Supreme Court orders to release the judge.

Prosecutor General (PG) Ahmed Muizz has joined the High and Supreme Courts in condemning the MNDF’s role in the arrest as unlawful, and requesting that the judge be released.

According to the PG, police have to go through the PG’s Office to obtain an arrest warrant from the High Court.

According to government officials, military assistance was sought for reasons of national security. Judge Mohamed has been implicated in 14 cases of obstruction of police duty, Afeef alleged.

Actions include ordering unlawful investigations, withholding warrants for up to four days, limiting the issuance of warrants to himself exclusively at times, disregarding decisions of higher courts, strategically delaying cases involving opposition members, and barring media from corruption trials, according to Afeef.

Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfan has said police had sent a letter to the armed forces on Monday, January 16, “requesting assistance to carry out its legal duty under article 71 of the Police Act, stating that the Criminal Court was not cooperating with police and that as a consequence of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed obstructing police work, the country’s internal security was threatened and police were unable to maintain public order and safety.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

HRCM meets Chief Judge in MNDF custody

Members of the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) visited Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in military custody yesterday.

A statement by the commission explained that the meeting was arranged under the HRCM’s national preventive mechanism (NPM) to monitor the treatment and condition of detainees and prevent ill-treatment.

Judge Abdulla was “in good health and provided all essential basic services” and did not complain of “any kind of harm or inhumane treatment”.

Abdulla Mohamed was controversially arrested by the military at about 11pm on Monday night. The detention prompted judges of the Criminal Court, High Court and Supreme Court as well as some members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to immediately convene at the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA).

Shortly thereafter, the High Court issued a court order demanding the immediate release of Judge Abdulla, noting that the arrest was in violation of legal procedures specified in the Judges Act, which requires a warrant from a higher court as well the consultation of the Prosecutor General (PG) if a judge is to be taken into custody on criminal charges.

Police had summoned the chief judge for questioning on Monday for an undisclosed investigation. However after the judge requested the High Court to cancel the summons, it issued an injunction ordering police to halt enforcement of the summons pending a ruling.

Judge Abdulla was taken into custody by the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) later that night following a request for assistance by police. The Home Minister and Defence Minister appeared on state broadcaster the following night explaining that military assistance was sought for “fear of loss of public order and safety and national security” on account of Judge Abdulla, who has “taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist”.

Meanwhile during the emergency congregation of judges and lawyers in the early hours of Monday morning, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz released a statement calling for the immediate release of Judge Abdulla.

Only the PG is authorised by the Judges Act to seek such an arrest warrant, the Chief Justice noted.
“The day these principle are demolished is the darkest and gloomiest time in the life of a nation,” the statement read.

The Supreme Court then issued an order to MNDF demanding the immediate release of the chief judge.

The government however continues to defy both the High Court and Supreme Court orders while Prosecutor General Ahmed Muiz has told local media that the Chief of Defence Forces and others involved in the arrest would be prosecuted for their “illegal actions”.

Opposition parties have launched daily protests and vowed to file no-confidence motions against the Home Minister and Defence Minister.

Meanwhile over 48 hours after his arrest, MNDF informed the judge’s family of his whereabouts and condition on Wednesday.

On Thursday, a group of 30 lawyers – including the current government’s first Attorney General Dhiyana Saeed and senior members of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) – released a statement appealing to the international community to urge the government to respect the constitution and law.

The lawyers insisted that Judge Abdulla’s arrest violated constitutional rights and legal procedures specified in the Judges Act as well as international norms.

Chief Justice Faiz meanwhile issued another statement last week appealing all state institutions to respect the powers and authority granted by the constitution to each organ of the state.

“In a constitutional system, a disruption to the legal status and powers of any institution is a disruption to the whole system,” the Chief Justice stated. “The consequences of a problem arising in one organ of the state will be faced by the whole system. Our constitutional system can only be maintained by protecting all state institutions.”

Faiz further appealed to all parties to respect democratic principles and remain within the bounds of the law and constitution.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government lifts week-long ban on resort spas, massage parlors

The government has lifted a controversial nationwide ban on spas and massage parlors with immediate effect while it awaits a ruling from the Supreme Court over the legality of spa operations and sale of pork and alcohol in resorts.

The announcement was made by President Mohamed Nasheed during a press conference today at Kurumba Island Resort, the country’s first resort which opened in 1972.

The week-long ban, which has made headlines in both local and international media, was lifted “because the government does not want the economy to suffer any damage during the time Supreme Court takes to come to a decision,” President Nasheed said.

Sale of pork and alcohol would also continue while other goods and services “such as casinos” demanded by the tourists, said Nasheed, would be allowed under the Contraband Act of 1975 until a judicial declaration is reached.

As the Maldivian constitution states that “Islam shall be one of the basis of all the laws of the Maldives” and prohibits the enactment of any laws “contrary to any tenet of Islam”, Nasheed said that the Tourism Ministry requested advice on legality of spa operations and sale of pork and alcohol at the recently-concluded ‘Islamic Scholars Symposium.’

However the scholars recommended that the government seek a judicial declaration, he revealed. Nasheed urged the apex court to settle the dispute in the near future.

Asked if the ban was necessary, Nasheed responded that the move was prompted by allegations made at the December 23 ‘Defend Islam’ demonstration.

Nasheed also dismissed opposition parties’ contention that the government should bear full responsibility for the economic consequences, arguing that “in a democracy, it is difficult to decide who’s responsible”, though conceding that the tourism sector’s reputation has been damaged in the process.

“We wanted to impress upon everyone where the opposition’s demands were ultimately going to end,” Nasheed explained.

The government’s ultimatum “woke the nation from its slumber and sparked a healthy national debate about the future direction of the country,” he insisted.

“The extremist demonstration on 23 December attracted a sizeable crowd. But their radical demands awoke the silent majority who categorically reject extremism,” Nasheed said.

The reason Maldives tourism industry have flourished for years, said Nasheed, is because the sector has been “free from religious fundamentalist demands.”

Referring to controversy over allowing Israeli airlines to operate flights to the Maldives, President Nasheed said that the tourist arrivals would be adversely affected “if we start saying that only certain nationals or certain airlines can come to Maldives,” noting that a sizable portion of tourists were Jewish.

The government’s decision rests on a decision made by parliament on recommendations by its National Security Committee, he said.

The December 23 religious rally organised by a coalition of NGOs and opposition parties was the “biggest use of religion as a political tool” in Maldivian history, Nasheed contended.

“We all must know such fundamentalist demands will damage the Maldives tourism industry’s [image] in the international community,” he said. “News will not always reach the international community in the way we prefer.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Assistant registrar files complaint against Supreme Court

The former Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court, Fathimath Latheef, has filed a case against the court in the Employment Tribunal accusing the court of unlawful dismissal.

According to her lawyer Mohamed Fareed, Fathimath was performing the tasks of a full Registrar prior to her dismissal on September 15.

Fareed claimed that the court did not give her termination notice prior to her dismissal and paid no compensation, accusing the highest branch of the judiciary of breaching the Employment Act.

He also alleged that the court decided to sack Fathimath following a complaint she filed with the Department of Judicial Administration, concerning the sudden transfer of her duties to a newly-appointed Secretary General – an individual who Fareed claimed was the wife of a Criminal Court Judge and member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).

“Because of the transfer, Fathimath no longer had the right to perform the duties of a Registrar, which was legally entitled to her under court regulations. She wrote to the judges at the Supreme Court regarding the issue, however the matter was not resolved,” Fareed said.

He also accused the Supreme Court of abusing its authority in appointing the Secretary General to the court, adding that the case had already been forwarded to the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC).

Deputy President of the ACC, Muaviz Rasheed, confirmed the case is now under investigation.

Minivan News is currently seeking a comment from the Supreme Court but the office was not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court rules Kaashidhoo MP cannot attend parliament sittings

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Independent MP Ismail Abdul Hameed could not attend parliament sittings as long as his conviction by the Criminal Court on corruption charges is not overturned.

The full bench of the apex court however ruled that the Kaashidhoo seat could not be declared vacant until Hameed exhausted the appeal process.

After the High Court upheld the Criminal Court verdict earlier this month, the convicted MP has filed an appeal at the Supreme Court, which has yet to decide whether to hear the case.

At Thursday’s hearing, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz noted that under section 55 of the parliamentary rules of procedure, an MP convicted of a criminal offence could no longer attend sittings and participate in votes, adding that this was the norm in free and democratic societies.

The Chief Justice however stressed that Hameed had the right to appeal his conviction, with the possibility that it could be overturned.

Parliament sittings have meanwhile been disrupted and cancelled since October 24 due to a dispute between opposition and ruling party MPs over Hameed’s right to attend sittings.

The resulting deadlock has seen sittings cancelled for three consecutive weeks, excepting the week-long holiday preceding the SAARC summit on November 10 to 11.

Addressing objections of opposition MPs who insisted sittings could not go ahead with Hameed in attendance, Speaker Abdulla Shahid had said that in cases of dispute parliament did not have the legal authority to determine if an MP was stripped of his or her seat.

Shahid noted that according to article 74 of the constitution, “Any question concerning the qualification or removal, or vacating of seats, of a member of the People’s Majlis shall be determined by the Supreme Court.”

Opposition MPs however contended that there was no room for dispute as an MP with a sentence to serve could not attend parliament.

Following the second week of forced cancellations, Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Nihan told Minivan News that opposition MPs did not wish to disrupt proceedings but were objecting because article 73(c)(3) of the constitution clearly stated that MPs found guilty of a criminal offence “and sentenced to a term of more than twelve months” would be stripped of their seat.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court concludes hearing concerning MP Abdul Hameed’s disqualification from public office

The Supreme Court has concluded hearings of a suit filed by Presidential Commission member Abdulla Haseen, to determine whether independent MP Abdul Hameed’s seat in the parliament is vacant.

The Criminal Court has previously ruled that MP Abdul Hameed was guilty of corruption, a verdict that disqualifies him from holding public office as an MP.

According to the constitution, any MP sentenced to a term longer than one year will be disqualified and his seat will be vacant. Hameed was sentenced to 18 months banishment.

Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP Ilham Ahmed, Jumhoory Party (JP) Youth Wing Leader Moosa Anwar, Adam Asif of Laamu Atoll Gan, and Hameed requested the court authorise them to speak in the hearing and were granted permission.

Speaking in the court, Hameed’s lawyer said that he still had a right to appeal any decision, and requested the Supreme Court declare that such a suit could be conducted.

Ilham’s lawyer said that following the ruling of Criminal Court, Hameed’s seat was vacant, and claimed that the parliament was deadlocked because of Hameed’s attempt to sit and take part in the parliament sessions.

He also requested the Supreme Court declare that Hameed could not attend parliament sittings prior to the conclusion of the case.

Asif’s lawyer also contested  that Hameed’s seat was now vacant, adding that after the Criminal Court’s ruling, Hameed did not qualify to be an MP.

Concluding the hearing, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz said that there will no more hearings of the suit and that the court will now conclude the case.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament deadlock continues

A third consecutive week of parliamentary sittings have been cancelled over an ongoing dispute over the attendance of Independent MP Ismail Abdul Hameed, who was convicted of corruption on August 29.

The last sitting on October 24 was cancelled after heated arguments between opposition and ruling party MPs over the Kaashidhoo MP’s right to participate in sittings until he exhausted the appeal process.

The High Court has since upheld the Criminal Court verdict.

Meanwhile a statement put out by the secretariat on Sunday explained that this week first sitting yesterday was called off as Speaker Abdulla Shahid’s efforts to resolve the dispute through discussions among parliamentary group leaders have been so far been unsuccessful.

The statement noted that according to article 74 of the constitution, “Any question concerning the qualifications or removal, or vacating of seats, of a member of the People’s Majlis shall be determined by the Supreme Court.”

The Supreme Court meanwhile concluded hearings today on a case filed by a private party over Hameed’s seat. According to the Majlis secretariat, Speaker Shahid has written to the Chief Justice requesting the case be expedited so that sittings could go ahead.

According to local media reports, the Supreme Court today heard from third parties who had entered into the case.

The statement however noted that committee meetings, where legislation is reviewed and stakeholders are consulted, have been taking place.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)