Tag: supreme court

Supreme Court enters legal wrangle over High Court appointments

The Supreme Court of the Maldives has ordered the Civil Court to halt its case regarding the Judicial Services Commission (JSC)’s appointment of five High Court judges last week, and hand the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Judicial Service Commission appointed five judges, Shuaib Hussein Zakariyya, Dr Azmiraldha Zahir, Abdul Rauf Ibrahim, Abbas Shareef and Ali Sameer to the High Court bench last week. Zahir is the first woman to be appointed to the High Court bench in the Maldives.

However once the appointments were concluded, Criminal Court judge Abdul Baary filed a case in the Civil Court against the appointment of the new judges, claiming that there were policy and legal issues in the JSC’s appointment procedure.

Judge Baary told Haveeru that there were issues with the High Court Judges Appointment Policy as established by the JSC itself.

He claimed that the JSC’s policy stated that if a female and a male scored even marks, higher priority should be given to the female when appointing judges for the High Court bench. This, he said, was against the Constitution and the Labor Act.

The Civil Court issued an injunction halting the appointment of the High Court judges prior to taking their oath.

However the Supreme Court today stated that it had issued a Writ of Prohibition to the Civil Court, ordering it to hand over the case file to the Supreme Court before 4:00pm tomorrow.

Six JSC members have been accused of criminal charges by the President’s Member on the Commission, Aishath Velezinee, while the Commission as a whole is under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Commission for allegedly embezzling money by paying itself a ‘committee allowance’.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Silver linings” says President, as Supreme Court ruling prompts Cabinet reshuffle

The departure of seven members of the Maldivian cabinet following Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling that ministers cannot retain their posts without endorsement by the opposition-majority parliament has prompted President Mohamed Nasheed to reshuffle the cabinet.

The Supreme Court ruling came after opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader took the government to court on the matter after using its majority to disapprove the reappointments of seven cabinet ministers. MPs of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) boycotted the vote in protest.

President Nasheed appointed Political Advisor Hassan Afeef as Home Minister, replacing Mohamed Shihab, who has been appointed Advisor on Political Affairs.

Shifa Mohamed has been promoted from Deputy Minister of Education to Minister in place of Dr Musthafa Luthfy. Both Afeef and Shifa received letters of appointment last night.

Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed has meanwhile resigned and been replaced by Minister of Housing and Environment Mohamed Aslam, in the post of acting minister.

Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad, formerly the Tourism Minister, has also resigned and been replaced by Minister of Human Resources, Youth and Sports Hassan Latheef, as acting Attorney General.

Minister of Health and Family Dr Aminath Jameel has been appointed acting Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture in place of Dr Ibrahim Didi.

Minvan News understands that no acting minister has currently been appointed to the Defence portfolio, which will instead be directed by the President with the assistance of security advisors.

It’s not cricket

During a press conference held on Saturday evening at the President’s residence ‘Muleaage’, Nasheed briefly discussed the Maldives’ cricketing triumph over Saudi Arabia in the Asian Cricket Council’s (ACC) 2010 Trophy Challenge, before opening the floor to questions.

Nasheed denied that the parliament had impacted the functioning of government or that the Supreme Court’s ruling had crippled the executive’s ability to appoint cabinet in a highly partisan political landscape.

Instead, he stated, the ruling “makes interpretation of the Constitution much more clear, and should therefore assist governance. Other than giving us clarity, I don’t really see as an obstruction to governance. I see it as giving more clarity as to how go about it.”

The President said he did not regret the decision in June for cabinet to temporarily resign en masse in protest against obstruction by parliament, which opened the executive to a Majlis counter-attack by its refusal to approve ministerial reappointments.

There was, he said, “a bigger picture.”

“I do not regret what happened in June. Try to understand the political landscape and what was happening at that time – which became quite clear through the [leaked] telephone conversations.

“Elements in the opposition were bent on disrupting the government. In very many words we heard that they wanted to topple the government, and remove many cabinet ministers. Cabinet at that time felt it had enough justification to say it was very difficult to govern because of parliamentary obstruction.”

The political instability and “looming uncertainties” created in the resultant vacuum “created an environment where a Supreme Court could be established.”

“For us to be able to come up with a Supreme Court was a fair achievement,” Nasheed said, “and we were able to get that primarily because of a number of political uncertainties that were looming at that time.”

“Now that we have a Supreme Court, it is clear on how we have to proceed with affairs and implement the Consitiution. I think it is a fine experience and I really think that once we step back and have a look what has actually happened, we will be able to understand that there are many many silver linings.”

As for the resigned ministers, “they are very capable people and we will be using their services – if they are willing. I have already had conversatinos with them. I believe they are willing to serve the country and the people, and will continue to serving in the government. But they won’t be serving in cabinet.”

Reaction

While the president was looking for “silver linings” in the dismissal of more than half his cabinet, Press Secretary for the President Mohamed Zuhair indicated that the rest of the executive was not quite as sanguine.

“The Supreme Court has returned the verdict that the opposition can use its ‘brute majority’, without citing any reasons for the disapprovals,” he said. “But it’s not the Supreme Court that refused consent, it was parliament, and people who were involved in the former dicatorship.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling, he said, had set a “disturbing precedent” for a any particularly vindictive majority opposition to perpetually refuse the appointment of ministers not of its choosing.

“Of all the ministers, [those disapproved] were the ones who had worked very hard to establish the Supreme Court and separation of powers, and do away with authorative power. And now it seems like the very same former establishment is punishing those forces,” Zuhair said.

He suggested that the opposition’s stubborness on the matter of endorsement by parliament, and lack of reasons giving for the dismissal of each minister, signalled a political grudge match “after they lost four key appointments when the cabinet resigned: the Chief Justice of the [interim] Supreme Court, who was known to be endorsed by them, the chief of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), who was also endorsed by them, chief of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) who was also endorsed by a DRP majority house, and the JSC Chief Mujthaz Fahmy, who appeared to be supportive of them. That may have rankled.”

“And there are other reasons – for instance, they have accused [Defence Minister] Ameen Faisal of involvement in the coup attempt of 1988, which he denies. [Former President] Gayoom’s judiciary at the time saw rebellion as a high crime, whereas in today’s multi-party democracy, someone going against the government is not a rebel.”

Deputy Leader and spokesperson for the DRP, Ibrahim Shareef, said the opposition was willing to give the President “the benefit of the doubt” and endorse any minister nominated, “as long as they can do the job.”

Shareef said it was too early to comment on whether the party would be endorsing the ministers currently pending parliamentary approval, including last night’s appointments to the Education and Home Affairs portfolios, Shifa Mohamed and Hassan Afeef.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court rules rejected ministers cannot remain in their positions

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday night that the seven cabinet ministers not endorsed by the opposition-majority parliament cannot remain in their posts.

Delivering the verdict, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussein noted that the Constitution did not state what should happen to rejected ministers, requiring the Supreme Court to make an interpretation.

All Supreme Court judges – with the exception of Judge Muthasim Adnan – ruled that ministers required the endorsement of parliament as stated in the Constitution.

However, the ministers would not be immediately dismissed, and would remain “employees” of the President until new nominees were put forward to parliament by the President.

President Mohamed Nasheed said during this week’s radio address that he would respect the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“When the Supreme Court rules that cabinet ministers cannot remain in office without the approval [of the People’s Majlis], it is compulsory for the President to follow that ruling”, President Nasheed said, emphasising that this evidence of an judiciary independent from the government was “a great achievement for the democratic process of the country.”

Health Minister Dr Aiminath Jameel, Youth Minister Hassan Latheef, Economic Minister Mahmood Razi, Housing Minister Mohamed Aslam and Islamic Minister Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari were approved by parliament on November 22, during a vote that was boycotted by MPs from the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Seven ministers – Finance Minister Ali Hashim, Education Minister Dr Musthafa Luthfy, Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed, Fisheries Minister Dr Ibrahim Didi, Home Minister Mohamed Shihab, Defence Minister Ameen Faisal and Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad – did not receive a majority of votes from the 42 MPs in attendance.

Following the vote, Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, head of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), took the case to Supreme Court arguing that Ministers rejected by parliament should be dismissed from office.

Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad was not responding to calls at time of press, but has previously said that “any interpretation [of the Constitution] whereby an appointed minister can be removed from his position by a simple majority, means that with parliament’s quorum of 20, 11 MPs can vote against cabinet and have ministers removed despite the constitution’s very detailed no confidence procedure.”

“Any interpretation that facilitates such instability in the political system is a very serious threat to our nation,” he stated.

The process of appointing cabinet members was criticised as ‘defective’ by Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, who claimed that the appointment process remained “beyond resolution” in such a highly partisan political environment.

“The [current] political environment is not conducive for a resolution within parliament,” he explained.

The cabinet resigned en masse in June protesting the “scorched-earth policies” of parliament, accusing the opposition majority of corrupt practices, deliberate obstruction and attempts to wrest executive control from the government.

Ministers were reappointed nine days later, making the cabinet vulnerable to the present ‘dismissal by procedure’.

The Supreme Court verdict is a firm rebuke to the government’s argument that approval of ministers by parliament is a “ceremonial” process and not tantamount to dismissal, and could be considered a victory for the opposition in retaliation for June’s publicity stunt.

However, the allowance for an unspecified interim period gives the government room to manoeuvre, and should Ministers remain in their posts as “employees”, is likely to spark fresh political turmoil over whether the government is adhering to the spirit of the ruling.

The ruling also increases pressure on the government to get the 2011 State Budget through parliament in the few remaining days of session before the end of the year.

The opposition has said it will not allow Finance Minister Ali Hashim to present the budget, however the government has argued that the budget was sent to parliament on December 1 and – against tradition – does not have to be presented in person.

Parliament’s regulations state that debate on the budget must commence within seven days of receiving the document and be decided upon seven days before the end of the year.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme court verdict pending on cabinet endorsements

The Supreme Court has concluded hearings on the opposition’s case demanding that the seven cabinet ministers rejected by the opposition-majority parliament step down from office, but has yet to have announced a date to deliver the verdict.

Minister of Fisheries Dr Ibrahim Didi, Minister of Education Dr Mustafa Luthfy, Minister of Defence Ameen Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr Ahmed Shaheed, Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad, Minister of Finance Ali Hashim and Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Shihab had their reappointments rejected in parliament last week after the endorsement vote was boycotted by the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

The issue of cabinet endorsements  had derailed parliament for the previous three weeks on points of order, placing the 2011 Budget in jeopardy of being submitted and passed before the final session of parliament for the year.

Dr Sawad told Minivan News today that the government’s argument was based on the fact that the Maldives had a “unique” constitutional process, and that the process of appointing ministers was not comparable with countries such as the United States.

In the Maldives, Dr Sawad said, “the President has the executive power to appoint Cabinet Ministers. There is a clear separation of powers.”

“If the interpretation is that by a simple majority any appointed minister can be removed from his position, that means that with parliament’s quorum of 20, 11 MPs can vote against cabinet and have ministers removed despite the constitution’s very detailed no confidence procedure,” he said. “If [ministers can be removed] by a simple sitting majority, it will lead to serious instability.”

Dr Sawad added that “any interpretation [of the Constitution] that facilitates such instability in the political system is a very serious threat to our nation.”

The issue of ministerial appointments within parliament has raised concerns among some MPs that current rulings are insufficient for the Maldives’ highly partisan political environment, particularly in relation to the Majlis.

Kuludufushi-South Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed last month claimed that constitutional changes within the Supreme Court will be required to address the nation’s ongoing political deadlock over cabinet ministers.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court cancels hearing on cabinet endorsement issue

The Supreme Court has canceled the first hearing of the case filed against the government by the opposition over the matter of cabinet endorsement.

The case was filed by opposition Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) Deputy leader and MP Ali Waheed and the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), requesting that court to determine whether cabinet members who did have the consent of the parliament could remain in their position.

The hearing was scheduled for 10:30pm, however after the media and others entered the court chamber the court announced that the hearing was canceled and would be scheduled later.

The court did not mention any reason why the hearing was canceled.

Later the Supreme Court issued a statement saying that one of the court’s judges was unable to be present at the panel and ”the case could be trialed only if all the judges are present.”

Supreme Court said that the judge had to leave due to the medical condition of his child and that the date the hearing would be scheduled is to be advised.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court to hold first hearing on cabinet controversy

The first hearing of the case filed in the Supreme Court against the government regarding the cabinet endorsement controversy is scheduled to be held tomorrow at 10:30 pm.

The case was filed in the court by Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ali Waheed and by Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), according to the Supreme Court.

The parties filed a case seeking a court order to declare that ministers who did not receive parliamentary consent should be removed from  their posts.

Former Attorney General and DRP Council Member Azima Shukoor will argue the opposition’s case in court. The present Attorney General’s office will act as the defendant in the case.

Following weeks of political stalemate, parliament voted last week to approve five out of 12 cabinet ministers reappointed by President Mohamed Nasheed in July.

After MPs of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) boycotted the sitting before voting began, the remaining MPs voted against the nominees Finance Minister Ali Hashim, Education Minister Dr Musthafa Luthfy, Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed, Fisheries Minister Dr Ibrahim Didi, Home Minister Mohamed Shihab, Defence Minister Ameen Faisal and Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad.

The government however insists that as none of the ministerial appointees received 39 votes against – the majority required to pass a no-confidence motion – all cabinet members shall remain in their posts.

Recently MDP Parliamentary Group leader and MP Moosa Manik has said that the Supreme Court have no authority to remove ministers from their position and said ”I can assure that the court will not even issue such an order.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court has “no authority to dismiss ministers”, claims Reeko Moosa

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) parliamentary group leader and MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik has claimed that the Supreme Court has no authority to dismiss ministers from their positions.

“MPs have the power to dismiss Supreme Court judges, and the Supreme Court will understand that the panel consists of judges we appointed,” Moosa said. ”Parliament does not know how to remove ministers from their position,” he claimed.

The matter saw parliament proceedings derailed for three weeks on points of order. Eventually the MDP boycotted the endorsement process during the vote last Monday, and seven ministers were ‘disapproved’.

The government meanwhile contends that the only way to remove a minister from their position is through a no-confidence motion.

However, the opposition believes that the procedure of cabinet appointments remains incomplete without the consent of parliament, and that ministers should not remain in office after the parliament disapproves them.

After disputes last week, the opposition filed the case in the Supreme Court.

Referring to the opposition’s refusal on Finance minister presenting the budget, Moosa said that if the opposition MPs obstructed Finance Minister Ali Hashim from entering the parliament ”he will enter the parliament with the citizens of the nation.”

Moosa also alleged that DRP MPs planned “to attack” Hashim if he entered the parliament to present the budget.

”If DRP committed any such actions, no ministers will remain silent. I – Moosa Manik – and MDP activists will go to their houses.”

However, DRP MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom said that Hashim was a ‘former’ minister and former ministers cannot present the state’s budget in parliament.

”A person becomes a minister only after the person successfully passes the three procedures: presidential appointment, parliamentary consent and taking the oath,” Mausoom said. ”[Moosa] Hecannot say that the courts have no authority – courts have full authority to make the best decision to resolve every issue.”

Mausoom said Moosa’s remarks reveals how much the government disregards the constitution and laws.

”This issue should have long been resolved if some people did not have these issues of stubbornness,” he said.

He also said that parliament speaks the citizen’s words and ”participation of citizens is required in sincere good governance.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Opposition parties seek Supreme Court order to remove ministers

Opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party-People’s Alliance (DRP-PA) coalition has filed a case in the Supreme Court seeking a court order to declare that ministers who did not receive parliamentary consent should be removed their posts.

The case was filed at the Supreme Court by DRP Deputy Leader MP Ali Waheed and PA Deputy Leader Moosa Zameer.

Former Attorney General and DRP Council Member Azima Shukoor will argue the opposition’s case in court.

PA Secretary General Ahmed Shareef told Minivan News today that the constitution was very clear on the matter: ”Parliament’s consent is required for cabinet ministers to remain in their position. It is the spirit of the constitution.”

He added that the minutes of the Special Majlis debates on the issue adds weight to the opposition’s position.

”It is unlawful for those in the cabinet who did not get consent of parliament to remain in their positions,” he added.

Following weeks of political stalemate, parliament voted this week voted to approve five out of 12 cabinet ministers reappointed by President Mohamed Nasheed in July.

After MPs of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) boycotted the sitting before voting began, the remaining MPs voted against the nominees Finance Minister Ali Hashim, Education Minister Dr Musthafa Luthfy, Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed, Fisheries Minister Dr Ibrahim Didi, Home Minister Mohamed Shihab, Defence Minister Ameen Faisal and Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad.

The government however insists that as none of the ministerial appointees received 39 votes against – the majority required to pass a no-confidence motion – all cabinet members shall remain in their posts.

Meanwhile, Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed, Legal Reform Minister under the former government, told Minivan News yesterday that the dispute over cabinet endorsement highlighted “defects” in the process.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ministerial appointment system “defective”, says MP Nasheed

The process of appointing cabinet members has been criticised as ‘defective’ by an Kuludufushi-South MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, who has claimed that constitutional changes within the Supreme Court will be required to address the nation’s ongoing political deadlock.

The independent MP today told Minivan News that yesterday’s votes on ministerial appointments, which saw a boycott of the sitting by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs before the approval of just five of 12 cabinet posts by the opposition majority parliament, may require court intervention before being settled.

The claims comes as Miadhu today reported that Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, head of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), threatened to turn to the Supreme Court if the seven ministers rejected in yesterday’s vote remained in office.

Despite the stalemate over the cabinet appointment issue, MP Nasheed said parliament today functioned “normally” with a number of bills under discussion, such as the proposed strike legislation.

However, the independent MP claimed that differences of opinion, particularly between the MDP and the DRP, highlighted to all sides that there were “defects” within the constitution concerning ministerial appointments.

The appointment process remained “beyond resolution” in a highly partisan political environment.

“The [current] political environment is not conducive for a resolution within parliament,” he explained.

According to Nasheed, this difference of opinion stems from two very different processes of thought currently within parliament.

MDP rationale, Nasheed said, was that cabinet ministers could only be rejected under a motion of no-confidence that required 39 parliamentary votes to pass. However, he added, opposition groups remained unable to table possible no-confidence motions for cabinet members that had not been appointed by the Majlis.

These differences, he suggested, revealed a major defect in the appointment process.

“Only when all these processes are agreed can there be a cabinet,” he added. “I think the matter will need to be resolved through the Supreme Court.”

The President’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair told Minivan News today that parliamentary rules required 39 votes to pass a no confidence motion concerning an individual cabinet minister.

With individual voting for every appointee during yesterday’s sitting falling short of the number of votes required for a no-confidence motion, Zuhair said the President “is happy the ministers are rightfully in place.”

He claimed that ministerial appointments were “not a case of popularity, but confidence”.

All 12 cabinet ministers were reinstated to their positions in July following a protest resignation about what they claimed were the “scorched earth” politics of the opposition-majority parliament.

Despite talks of legal action from the opposition, Parliamentery Speaker Abdulla Shahid – himself a DRP MP – said he was optimistic that the rival parties could reach an “amicable solution” within the current political framework.

“I am urging parties to engage in dialogue,” said Shahid, who claimed the ministerial statemate created by yesterday’s decision would not adversely affect important upcoming legislation such passing the 2011 budget.

Shahid told Minivan News that despite its fledgling status, Maldivian democracy “had a history of engaging in dialogue to overcome political deadlocks. We will find an amicable solution.”

Despite ongoing uncertainty resulting from issues such as the cabinet appointments, Shahid added that it was vital to establish ‘customs and norms’ within the Maldives’ parliamentary proceedings.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)