Tag: supreme court

JSC recommends dismissal of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan

The Judicial Services Commission has today recommended Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justice Musthasim Adnan be dismissed from the Supreme Court bench.

The decision comes within hours of  President Abdulla Yameen ratifying an amendment to reduce the seven-member Supreme Court to five judges.

According to local media, several members of the judicial watchdog body boycotted today’s extraordinary meeting, claiming the amendment was unconstitutional.

JSC Secretary General Abu Bakr refused to provide details of today’s meeting stating the commission had decided to keep proceedings confidential until the Majlis reaches a decision.

According to the revised Judicature Act, the JSC must deem two of the seven judges unsuitable for the position within three days and the parliament must vote out the judges with a two-thirds majority of members present and voting within seven days. Dismissed judges will be provided a generous compensation package.

Article 154 of the Constitution says a judge can only be removed if the JSC finds a judge guilty of gross incompetence or misconduct.

Dismissal of the judges appear likely as the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) and coalition partner Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) control 48 seats of the 85-member house.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Jumhooree Party (JP), who opposed the amendment, only control 23 and 12 seats respectively.

The amendment was proposed by MDP MP Ibrahim ‘Mavota’ Shareef, but the MDP issued a three line whip against the proposal with opposition leader and former President Mohamed Nasheed saying it would allow President Yameen to stack the Supreme Court bench in his favor.

JP Leader Gasim Ibrahim on December 2 called the amendment unconstitutional and an “atrocity.” He said the amendment will allow the executive and Majlis to change the Supreme Court bench at their whim.

Faiz and Adnan have formed the dissenting opinions in several controversial cases, including the decision to annul the first round of presidential elections held in September 2013.

Since then, the Supreme Court has been involved in numerous controversies both in and out of the court room.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court used a ‘suo moto’ proceeding – allowing the Court to act as both the plaintiff and the judge – against the Elections Comission (EC).

EC president Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz were subsequently charged with contempt of court and disobedience to order, being sentenced to six months in jail after the court used testimony given in the People’s Majlis independent commission’s oversight committee.

More recently, the court employed a similar ‘suo moto’ proceeding against the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) after it criticised the judiciary in its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for the UN Human Rights Council.

The court charged the HRCM with undermining the constitution and sovereignty of the Maldives by spreading lies about the judiciary.  It said that the UPR submission– based on a 2013 report by the UN Special Rapporteur for Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul – was “poorly researched”, “irresponsible” and “dangerous”.

June this year also saw Judge Ali Hameed – a sitting judge at the Supreme Court – cleared of a sex tape scandal after three recordings surfaced allegedly showing Ali Hameed engaging in sexual acts with three different woman.

The revised Judicature Act also propose the establishment of two additional branches of the High Court in the northern and southern regions of the Maldives.

The two new branches can only adjudicate the rulings of the magistrate courts. The nine-member High Court is to be divided among the three branches with three judges in each branch.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament reduces Supreme Court bench to five judges

The People’s Majlis has today amended the Judicature Act to reduce the seven-member Supreme Court bench to five judges.

The amendment proposed by opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ibrahim ‘Mavota’ Shareef passed with backing from the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) and its ally Maldives Development Alliance (MDA).

46 MPs voted in favor and 19 MPs voted against the amendment.

The MDP had issued a three-line whip against the proposal with opposition leader and former President Mohamed Nasheed claiming the amendment would allow President Abdulla Yameen to stack the bench in his favor.

Shareef himself voted against the amendment.

MDP MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik – who has announced intentions to contest in the MDP’s 2018 presidential primary – voted for the amendment.

He previously described the formation of the current Supreme Court bench as a “shameful” political bargain between the MDP and then–opposition parties in 2010.

According to the amended Judicature Act, a Supreme Court judge can only be dismissed if the judicial watchdog body, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), decides they are unsuitable for the position.

The JSC must then submit names of the judges to be dismissed within three days of the amendment’s enforcement.

Judges can only be dismissed by a two-third-majority vote of the Majlis. The amendment gives the Majlis a period of seven days to dismiss the judges. Judges who fail the vote will remain on the bench.

The PPM and MDA control a combined 48 seats in the 85-member house.

Three judges sit on the ten-member JSC. They are Supreme Court Judge Adam Mohamed, High Court Judge Abdulla Hameed and Superior Court Judge Mohamed Easa Fulhu.

The amendments also propose the establishment of two additional branches of the High Court in the northern and southern regions of the Maldives.

The two new branches can only adjudicate the rulings of the magistrate courts. The nine-member High Court is to be divided among the three branches with three judges in each branch.

The Supreme Court has recently been involved in numerous controversies both in and out of the court room.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court used a ‘suo moto’ proceeding – allowing the Court to act as both the plaintiff and the judge – against the Elections Comission (EC).

EC president Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz were subsequently charged with contempt of court and disobedience to order, being sentenced to six months in jail after the court used testimony given in the People’s Majlis independent commission’s oversight committee.

More recently, the court employed a similar ‘suo moto’ proceeding against the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) after it criticised the judiciary in its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for the UN Human Rights Council.

The court charged the HRCM with undermining the constitution and sovereignty of the Maldives by spreading lies about the judiciary.  It said that the UPR submission– based on a 2013 report by the UN Special Rapporteur for Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul – was “poorly researched”, “irresponsible” and “dangerous”.

Knaul’s report had detailed the pressing need for judicial reform, noting that the five-member transitional Supreme Court had been replaced by a seven-member permanent bench in 2010 with “no legal or constitutional basis”.

June this year also saw Judge Ali Hameed – a sitting judge at the Supreme Court – cleared of a sex tape scandal after three recordings surfaced allegedly showing Ali Hameed engaging in sexual acts with three different woman.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed calls proposed changes to Supreme Court bench unconstitutional

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has called the plans to reduce the number of judges on the Supreme Court bench from seven to five unconstitutional.

While speaking to the press before departing for a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rallys in Haa Dhaalu Atoll, Nasheed accused President Abdulla Yameen of trying to stack the bench in his favor.

“The constitution states the required procedure to bring changes to the bench of the Supreme Court. After extensive legal council we have deliberated that the proposed changes would be unconstitutional,” said Nasheed.

The amendments brought to the parliament by MDP MP Ibrahim ‘Mavota’ Shareef have been rejected by the party after the its national executive council convened and voted that the amendments were against its policies.

Speaking about the amendments, MDP Parliamentary Group Leader Ibrahim ‘Ibu’ Mohamed Solih said Shareef had not consulted the party before he submitted the changes.

However, the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) has signaled the party’s support for the amendments with parliamentary group leader Ahmed Nihan said all ruling party MPs would support the proposal and that the PPM would welcome judicial reform.

Presenting the bill to the parliament Shareef said that he believed the number of judges on the apex court was too high for a country the size of the Maldives.

Nasheed had previously said that changing the number of judges on the Supreme Court bench would not amount to judicial reform.

Meanwhile, MDP MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik – who has announced intentions to contest in the MDP’s 2018 presidential primary – appealed for pro-government MPs to cooperate with the party’s efforts to reform the judiciary.

Moosa described the formation of the current Supreme Court bench as a “shameful” political bargain between the MDP and then–opposition parties in 2010.

Nihan praised both Shareef and Moosa and suggested that the number of judges on the apex court was worth considering.

Former President Nasheed also reiterated party concerns with the annual state budget for the upcoming year which the party has previously labelled as aimless and serving only for administrative purposes.

The Supreme Court has recently been involved in numerous controversies both in and out of the court room.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court used a ‘suo moto’ proceeding – allowing the Court to act as both the plaintiff and the judge – against the Elections Comission (EC).

EC president Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz were subsequently charged with contempt of court and disobedience to order, being sentenced to six months in jail after the court used testimony given in the People’s Majlis independent commission’s oversight committee.

More recently, the court employed a similar ‘suo moto’ proceeding against the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) after it criticised the judiciary in its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for the UN Human Rights Council.

The court charged the HRCM with undermining the constitution and sovereignty of the Maldives by spreading lies about the judiciary.  It said that the UPR submission– based on a 2013 report by the UN Special Rapporteur for Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul – was “poorly researched”, “irresponsible” and “dangerous”.

Knaul’s report had detailed the pressing need for judicial reform, noting that the five-member transitional Supreme Court had been replaced by a seven-member permanent bench in 2010 with “no legal or constitutional basis”.

June this year also saw Judge Ali Hameed – a sitting judge at the Supreme Court – cleared of a sex tape scandal after three recordings surfaced allegedly showing Ali Hameed engaging in sexual acts with three different woman.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP rejects MP Shareef’s proposal to reduce Supreme Court bench

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party’s (MDP) national executive council has rejected an amendment proposed by MDP MP Ibrahim ‘Mavota’ Shareef to reduce the number of Supreme Court judges from the current seven to five.

Speaking to the press today, opposition leader and former President Mohamed Nasheed said the amendments would require reappointment of the Supreme Court bench, and said the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives’ (PPM) majority in the parliament and their refusal to consider the opposition’s concerns would result in a bench biased towards the PPM.

“The current issues within the judicial system does not amount to the number of judges at the Supreme Court. There are bigger issues that require immediate resolution,” he said.

In a speech last night, Nasheed described the amendments as an attempt by the PPM to fit the Supreme Court bench into President Abdulla Yameen’s fist.

The amendments came in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to accept a complaint over “an unconstitutional decision” to reappoint the auditor general, he claimed. The Supreme Court today rejected the complaint.

Shareef defected from the MDP to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) in 2008, but rejoined the MDP during the presidential elections of 2013. Gayoom left the DRP to form PPM in 2011.

Shareef said he believed a seven member Supreme Court to be too large for the Maldives. He has also proposed two three-member High Court benches be established in the North and South.

Meanwhile, MDP Parliamentary Group Leader Ibrahim ‘Ibu’ Mohamed Solih said Shareef had not consulted the party before he submitted amendments.

MDP Chairperson Ali Waheed said the party’s MPs are now obliged to proceed with the national council’s decision.

Meanwhile, local media reported that Hulhuhenveiru MP and Deputy Speaker ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik had boycotted the council meeting following a heated argument. Speaking to Haveeru afterwards, Manik pledged to support Shareef, even he if he has to do so alone, and claimed MDP members had treated Shareef disrespectfully at today’s meeting.

The Supreme Court – established in 2008 – has been in the midst of numerous controversies in and out of the Court room.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court used a ‘suo moto’ proceeding – allowing the Court to act as both the plaintiff and the judge – against the Elections Comission (EC)’s President Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz.

They were charged with contempt of court and disobedience to order and sentenced to six months in jail as a result of testimony given in the People’s Majlis independent commission’s oversight committee.

More recently, the Court employed a similar ‘suo moto’ proceeding against the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) after it criticized the judiciary in its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) sent to the UN.

The Court charged HRCM with undermining the constitution and sovereignty of the Maldives by spreading lies about the judiciary in the UPR while stating that the report – based on a 2013 report by the UN Special Rapporteur for Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knau – was ‘poorly researched’, ‘irresponsible’ and ‘dangerous.’

June this year also saw Judge Ali Hameed – a sitting Judge at the Supreme Court – being cleared of a sex tape scandal after three recordings surfaced allegedly showing Ali Hameed engaging in sexual acts with three different woman.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

NGOs suggest government’s failure to engage is damaging civil society

As last week’s NGO conference came to close, the award ceremony – with Minister of Defence Mohamed Nazim acting as chief guest – suggested strained relations between government and civil society.

Of the 22 organisations taking part in the conference organised by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives – 12 from Malé and 10 from the atolls – not all stepped up to receive certificates from the minister.

“I believe there are more relevant figures to be the chief guest at an NGO conference the country’s defense minister,” explained one NGO representative who boycotted the ceremony.

The main aim of the conference, in addition to providing networking opportunities, was to create a forum in which the participants could share the scope of the work done by the NGOs as well as discussing greater issues faced by civil society.

NGOs involved suggest that many of those issues involved the government’s lack of effective engagement, perhaps typified by the recent decision of the immigration department – headed by minister Nazim – to introduce exit permits for migrant workers.

The controversial scheme was reversed less than two weeks after being introduced after complaints from NGOs, who had not been consulted adequately prior to its introduction.

Groups present at the conference listed migrant workers rights as one of their main areas of interest, alongside health rights, children’s rights, women’s rights, and disability rights.

Lack of support

Discussing concerns raised during the conference, Maldivian Democracy Network’s (MDN) Shahinda identified the government’s lack of financial support for NGOs as the most pressing issue facing civil society.

“For several years, the government has allotted financial support for NGOs in the state budget. However, we have never seen the support being fully realizsed even though it is stated in the budget,” said Shahinda.

HRCM Vice President Ahmed Tholal noted that, although financial support for NGOs is included in the state budget, a lot of the expenditure is spent on sports association rather than NGOs working for human rights.

“Given the lack of state financial support, NGOs often have to resort to individuals and donors,” continued Tholal. “The current public perception is that if an NGO has a donor, then it must be one sided or politically motivated. This is not true in most cases.”

A general lack of perception or an understanding of the work civil society is doing was another key issue raised during the three-day conference.

While speaking at the closing ceremony, one participant representing Muraidhoo Ekuveringe Jamiyya from Haa Alif Muraidhoo, said there was little appreciation of work done by NGOs from either the public or from government institutions.

Chairperson for the Maldives Association of Physical Disabilities, Ahmed Mohamed, commented that the general public remains unaware of disability rights.

“I think it is the duty of the government to increase awareness or work on empowering NGOs so that we can increase our outreach in spreading awareness,” said Ahmed.

MDN also suggested that the poor public appreciation of civil society and the lack of acknowledgement of NGO could be traced back to a lack of engagement from the government.

“Every year, our annual reports are sent to the home ministry which just files it. The reports detail what we do, our achievements and other relevant information. All of this is not acknowledged by the state so the general public is unaware of the work we do,” complained Shahinda.

Tholal also stressed the importance of state acknowledgment of NGO work, suggesting that public perception is shaped by the state’s response to work done by NGOs.

“NGOs are institutionalised and organised voices of the public. Government institutions have to respect statements and reports from NGOs whether they agree or disagree with the political ideology of the government,” noted Tholal.

Shahinda added that the public sometimes has unrealistic expectations of NGOs, saying that organisations do not have the capacity to deal with every single issue.

An intimidating future?

HRCM Vice President Tholal stressed that NGOs role as human rights defenders was being jeopardised as there was insufficient space and capacity to operate effectively and independently.

NGOs at the conference voiced concern over the prevalence of threats and measures made by the state to intimidate and silence civil society and other independent institutions.

“There have been numerous threats and attacks on civil society organisations and individuals. Government has done little to no work to address these threats,” said Shahinda.

Most recently, Supreme Court initiated a ‘suo moto’ proceeding against the HRCM for its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) submission made to the UN, while denouncing the HRCM’s suggestions that the judiciary was controlled and influenced by the Supreme Court.

A similar proceeding – in which the court acts as both plaintiff and judge – was used in the ousting and prosecution of Elections Commission President Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz in February.

In October 2013, the home ministry launched an investigation into comments made by Transparency Maldives and the Tourism Employees Association of the Maldives (TEAM), saying that it would not allow any organisation to challenge the law.

Staff at anti-corruption NGO Transparency Maldives have also been subject to death threats as well as one employee being physically assaulted during the recent Majlis elections.

Asked about the future of the civil society in the Maldives, Tholal reiterated the importance of state acknowledgement in order to improve the current atmosphere.

“I believe that the civil society is the most important voice in raising issues against the state in making it more responsible,” said Tholal.

While things may get difficult, Shahinda expressed confidence that important work carried out by civil society groups would continue.

“If things do not change, it is going to be more and more challenging. However, I am sure these challenges alone will not hinder the work of the civil society”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP may challenge constitutionality of amendment to Audit Act

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party’s (MDP) parliamentary group has decided to make a recommendation to the party’s national executive committee (NEC) to challenge the constitutionality of amendments brought to the Audit Act last week.

“The NEC will make a decision tomorrow,” MP Rozaina Adam said at a press conference this morning.

Under Article 143 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Court has the jurisdiction “to enquire into and rule on the constitutional validity of any statute or part thereof enacted by the People’s Majlis.”

Rozaina argued that the amendment stipulating that the president shall reappoint an auditor general within 30 days was unconstitutional.

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Thoriq had proposed adding a clause to the audit law stating that the president shall nominate for parliamentary approval an individual or individuals to the post of auditor general within 30 days of ratifying the amendments.

The amendment was passed with 36 votes in favour and 22 against at Wednesday’s (October 29) sitting of parliament.

At today’s press conference, MP Imthiyaz Fahmy meanwhile stressed the importance of the public protesting the unconstitutional move.

Imthiyaz said he had learned that parliament’s Counselor General Fathmath Filza had also advised Speaker Abdulla Maseeh Mohamed that the amendment was unconstitutional.

President Abdulla Yameen ratified the amendments less than 24 hours after it was passed, he noted.

Imthiyaz said the haste with which the amendment was passed and ratified shows the PPM government’s eagerness to replace the auditor general following allegations of corruption made against the party’s deputy leader – Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb – in a special audit report of the Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Company (MMPRC).

Meanwhile, Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim told newspaper Haveeru last night that he would also contest the constitutionality of the amendment at the Supreme Court.

The amendment contravenes the process specified in the Constitution for the appointment and removal of the auditor general, Niyaz contended.

Article 218 of the Constitution states that the auditor general could be removed from office “(a) on the ground of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence; and (b) a finding to that effect by a committee of the People’s Majlis, pursuant to article (a) and upon the approval of such finding by the People’s Majlis by a majority of those present and voting, calling for the Auditor General’s removal from office”.

Niyaz told the local daily that he does not intend to remain in the post even if the Supreme Court strikes down the amendment.

Following the release of the MMPRC special audit report, Niyaz revealed that death threats were sent to both himself and his family. Niyaz is currently on leave.

During last week’s parliamentary debate, PPM MP Thoriq said he proposed the amendment with reference to Article 211(b) of the Constitution, which states, “A statute shall specify the responsibilities, powers, mandate, qualifications, and ethical standards of the Auditor General.”

Thoriq noted that the Audit Act was passed in 2007 before the ratification of the Constitution the following year and did not specify the responsibilities, mandate, qualification and ethical standards of the auditor general.

PPM MP Ibrahim Waheed has meanwhile told local media that the post of auditor general became vacant with the president’s ratification of the amendments.

Waheed contended that as Niyaz was appointed under the 2007 audit law, a new auditor general must be appointed in accordance with the Constitution following the amendments to the Audit Act.

Article 210 of the Constitutions states, “The President shall appoint as Auditor General a person approved by a majority of the total membership of the People’s Majlis from the names submitted to the People’s Majlis as provided for in law.”

Waheed argued that Niyaz was appointed in the absence of a law passed after the adoption of the Constitution in August 2008.

“So the legal obligations and responsibilities of the present Auditor General will stop. And if he is willing to go ahead, he also has to apply to the post just like others. An Auditor General will be appointed under this constitution after the parliament approves the name sent by the president,” he was quoted as saying by Sun Online.

The 17th People’s Majlis had unanimously approved former President Mohamed Nasheed’s nomination of Niyaz Ibrahim to the post of auditor general in May 2011.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court enacts new regulations on flogging

The Supreme Court has enacted new regulations on the enforcement of flogging sentences, specifying conditions and criteria for meting out the Islamic Sharia punishment.

The regulations (Dhivehi) made public yesterday state that the offender must be of sound mind, must not be pregnant, and must not have an illness that could endanger his or her life due to flogging.

Moreover, a sentence for flogging must be implemented after the convict has either exhausted the appeal process or declined to appeal the verdict in the specified period.

Speaking at a ceremony held last month to mark the anniversary of the Criminal Court, Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed revealed that 37 flogging sentences remained unenforced due to alleged lack of cooperation from the relevant authorities.

If the offender is a deaf mute or does not speak Dhivehi, the regulations state that the court should seek a statement through a translator.

The court must also appoint a competent “special employee” to implement flogging sentences.

If the offender is under age when the verdict is delivered, the regulations state that the sentence must be imposed when the offender turns 18 years of age.

Section 222 of the regulations on conducting trials would be abolished once the new regulations come into force.

According to statistics from the Department of Judicial Administration, almost 90 percent of those convicted of fornication or pre-marital sex in 2011 were female.

Of 129 fornication cases in 2011, 104 people were sentenced, out of which 93 were female. This included 10 underage girls, 79 women aged 18-40, and four women above 40 years.

In response to a Minivan News report in 2009 of an 18 year-old woman fainting after a 100 lashes, Amnesty International called for a moratorium on the “inhumane and degrading punishment.”

Of the 184 people sentenced to public flogging in 2006, 146 were female, making it nine times more likely for women to be punished.

In November 2011, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay urged the authorities to impose a moratorium on flogging and to foster national dialogue and debate “on this issue of major concern.”

“This practice constitutes one of the most inhumane and degrading forms of violence against women, and should have no place in the legal framework of a democratic country,” the UN human rights chief told MPs during a maiden visit to the Maldives.

Her remarks sparked protests by Islamic groups outside the UN building and drew condemnation from the Islamic Ministry, NGOs and political parties.

In August 2013, a flogging sentence of a 15-year-old girl rape victim convicted of fornication was overturned following an international campaign.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

OHCHR expresses concern over Human Rights Commission charges

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s suo moto case against the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM).

“We are deeply concerned about the case initiated by the Supreme Court of the Maldives against the five members of the Human Rights Commission of the country,” read the press briefing.

The OHCHR expressed its concerns in a press release yesterday (October 17) from spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Ravina Shamdasani.

The Supreme Court has charged the HRCM with undermining the constitution and the sovereignty of the Maldives by spreading falsehoods about the judiciary in its submission for the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review.

Next year’s review – the Maldives’ second since the introduction of the process – will take place between April and May next year.

The OHCHR statement noted that, in making the UPR submission, the commission had operated in line with international principles governing national institutions.

The OHCHR urged the government to “firmly defend the independence of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives in line with the commitments made during the first UPR of the Maldives in 2011.”

“The government has a responsibility to ensure a safe operating space for the commission and for civil society actors in the country, so that they are able to cooperate with UN human rights mechanisms without fear of reprisals,” read the press release.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein has also written directly to the Maldivian Government to express his concerns over the issue.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has already called the case “unfortunate”, describing the court’s action as “a decision that will not help restore its credibility.”

The Supreme Court came under intense international criticism following its role in the 2013 presidential election, which included the annulment of the first round based on evidence later discredited by UN experts.

“Free Speech must be protected, not trampled,” said Baird late last month.

The Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions urged President Abdulla Yameen to ensure the independence of the HRCM and to guarantee immunity from prosecution for its members.

In the second court hearing held in the case on September 30, the Supreme Court denounced the submission’s section on the judiciary as “dangerous”, “irresponsible” and “poorly researched.”

The Supreme Court slammed commission members for basing criticism of the judiciary on findings from the 2013 report by UN Special Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul that it had previously rejected.

Former Judicial Service Comission member Aishath Velezinee was denied entry into the hearing after being issued a pass at the reception, with a court official telling her that she could not be let into the court room for security reasons.

In similar suo moto action in March, senior members of the Elections Commission were dismissed after being prosecuted for charged with contempt of court and disobedience to order.

Suo moto cases – unheard of in the Maldives before this year – involve the court taking the initiative to bring charges which are then overseen by its own judges.

While the President’s Office has also criticised the HRCM’s submission, suggesting that sections on the death penalty are misleading, the Maldivian Democratic Party has accused the court of undermining the commission’s mandate.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Asia Pacific Forum urges president to preserve independence of HRCM

No additional reporting by missing journalist Ahmed Rilwan

The Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APF) has urged President Abdulla Yameen to ensure the independence of the Human Rights Commission of Maldives and guarantee immunity from prosecution for its members.

All five members of the HRCM are currently on trial at the Supreme Court, which has initiated suo moto proceedings against the commission on charges of undermining the constitution by allegedly including false information in its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) submission to the UN Human Rights Council.

“In expressing its considered opinion to the UPR, the HRCM is fulfilling its official and legal mandate,” reads a letter from APF Chairperson Dr Ali Ben Smaihk Al-Marri sent to President Yameen on September 24.

“With the greatest respect, we urge you to preserve the independence of the HRCM and guarantee the immunity of members of the HRCM. The APF is willing to provide you any assistance you think fit on this matter.”

The APF is a member organisation of national human rights bodies of the Asia Pacific region with a membership of 22 institutions.

In its letter, APF noted that the HRCM was “a highly valued and respected member” of the organisation and expressed “gravest concern” over the Supreme Court’s actions.

The ongoing trial was “a concerning threat to the independence of the commission,” the organisation said.

The APF referred to Article 27(a) of the HRCM Act, which grants members immunity from prosecution for “committing or omitting an act in good faith”.

Moreover, Article 27(b) states that the commission could only be sued regarding published reports following an inquiry which establishes the falsehood of a component of the report.

“In addition, the UN international standards relating to NHRIs, the ‘Paris Principles’ set out, that in terms of a NHRIs independence, competence and responsibilities a NHRI is able to ‘contribute to the reports which States are required to submit to United Nations bodies and committees, and to regional institutions, pursuant to their treaty obligations and, where necessary, to express an opinion on the subject, with due respect for their independence,'” the APF letter stated.

At last week’s second hearing of the suo moto trial, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain slammed the commission for basing its observation – that the Supreme Court controlled and influenced the judiciary to the detriment of lower courts – on a 2013 report by the UN Special Rapporteur for Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul.

Faiz said the judiciary had rejected Knaul’s report as invalid. In June 2013, the government accused Knaul of undermining the Maldives’ sovereignty and jurisdiction.

On Tuesday (September 30), the European Union (EU) delegation in Colombo and EU member states expressed concern with the Supreme Court trial undermining the HRCM’s independence.

Meanwhile, former Justice Minister Ahmed ‘Seena’ Zahir called on the public last week to speak out for judicial reform and warned of a burgeoning “judicial dictatorship.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)