Tag: supreme court

Former justice minister slams “judicial dictatorship”

No additional reporting by missing journalist Ahmed Rilwan

The Maldivian judiciary is not functioning as envisioned in the revised constitution adopted in August 2008 and should be reformed, former Justice Minister and former Speaker Ahmed ‘Seena’ Zahir has said in a scathing critique of the justice system.

“If we don’t want an executive dictatorship from a dictatorship, we don’t want a judicial dictatorship either,” the former speaker of parliament reportedly said at a ceremony held on Monday night (September 29) to inaugurate an association of former students of the private Malé English School (MES).

Zahir’s criticism follows the Supreme Court initiating suo moto proceedings against members of the Human Rights Commission of Maldives over its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) submission to the UN Human Rights Council.

The Special Majlis constitutional assembly convened to amend the constitution – of which he was a member – did not envision the judiciary “meddling” in executive affairs, Zahir said.

Judges were offered tenure, job security and high pay, he noted.

He added that the judiciary was misinterpreting constitutional provisions while the mandate of judges was limited to conducting trials.

“That should be brought to an end. It won’t come to a halt by jailing those who talk about this. Someone has to raise their voices on behalf of the people,” he said.

Zahir called on the public to exercise the constitutional right to freedom of expression and raise their voices for judicial reform.

The MES senior student association could take up the call as it should be done in an academic and unbiased manner without politicisation, he advised.

Zahir – who served as justice minister in the cabinet of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and participated in the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives’ (PPM) presidential campaign last year – suggested that political parties were unwilling to speak out for judicial reform.

He also noted that the judiciary would have to arbitrate and settle commercial disputes under foreign investment laws.

Such laws, however, would not serve its purpose of attracting foreign investment if the judiciary remained unreformed, Zahir contended.

Zahir advised a bipartisan effort to amend the constitution, noting that the ruling PPM and coalition partner Maldives Development Alliance had a comfortable majority in the People’s Majlis.

“And their supporters also support amending the constitution,” he said, adding that the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) would also back such an effort as it has been advocating for judicial reform.

However, Zahir said he did not see efforts to reform the judiciary through parliament.

The purpose of amending the constitution should not be “removing A from the post and appointing B,” he added.

Suo moto

Less than two weeks before the parliamentary polls in March, the Supreme Court charged Elections Commission Chair Fuwad Thowfeek and Deputy Chair Ahmed Fayaz with contempt of court and dismissed the pair under unprecedented suo moto proceedings.

Subsequent changes to contempt of court regulations made in June authorised courts to penalise individuals for any expression, action, gesture, or piece of writing “inside or outside a courtroom” that could be considered contempt of court.

At yesterday’s trial against the HRCM members, 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.

Meanwhile, in 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Council, of which the Maldives is a member, said it was “deeply concerned about the state of the judiciary in the Maldives.”

“The state has admitted that this body’s independence is seriously compromised.  The Committee has said the judiciary is desperately in need of more serious training, and higher standards of qualification,” a statement read.

The Supreme Court in particular needed “radical readjustment,” the committee said. “As 6 of 7 Supreme Court judges are experts in Sharia law and nothing more, this court in particular is in need of radical readjustment.  This must be done to guarantee just trials, and fair judgments for the people of Maldives.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Velezinee barred from Supreme Court trial

Former Judicial Service Commission (JSC) member Aishath Velezinee was barred from yesterday’s trial at the Supreme Court against members of the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM).

Although Velezinee registered at the reception to observe proceedings, she was later told by a court officer that she could be let into the court room for “security reasons”.

Other members of the public as well as journalists were allowed to enter after registering.

Velezinee subsequently wrote a letter to Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain in protest of the discriminatory treatment. Noting that she was even given a pass after registering, Velezinee asked for an explanation from the court for depriving her of a constitutional right to observe proceedings.

In 2010, Velezinee turned whistleblower and alleged the JSC was complicit in protecting judges appointed under the Gayoom’s government, and was colluding with parliament to ensure legal impunity for senior opposition supporters. In January 2011 she was stabbed twice in the back in broad daylight.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives’ human rights developments “disturbing”, says Canadian foreign minister

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has described recent developments in the Maldives as “disturbing”, expressing concern over the current human rights situation.

“The likely kidnapping of a leading local journalist and threats and attacks against other journalists, politicians and activists are particularly disturbing,” read a statement from the Foreign Affairs Ministry.

Baird subsequently labelled the legal action against the Human Rights Commission of Maldives – initiated in relation to a report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council – as “unfortunate”.

He described the Supreme Court’s suo moto case – which continues today (September 30) – as “a decision that will not help to restore its credibility. Free speech must be protected, not trampled.”

Recent attacks on the office of Minivan News, the office of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), and the homes of MDP MPs have prompted international condemnation.

The Maldives Ministry of Foreign Affairs was joined by the United States and Reporters Without Borders in condemning the night of lawlessness in the capital Malé following the Minivan News incident.

Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon “noted that the government remains strongly committed to create an environment that gives protection to media personnel to exercise their duties freely and responsibly.”

The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the first foreign government to officially register such concerns earlier this month in relation to a growing culture of death threats and the disappearance of Minivan News journalist Ahmed Rilwan on August 8.

Baird has been notable for his strong statements regarding the Maldives in recent years, often resulting in criticism from the government.

A statement from the Canadian minister in 2012 regarding the alleged persecution of opposition MPs was described as “misleading” and “one-sided” by government officials.

Similarly, last year President Dr Mohamed Waheed wrote a letter of complaint to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, accusing Baird of making “inappropriate and derogatory remarks” towards then acting Foreign Minister Dr Mariyam Shakeela during a Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group meeting.

Concerned by extremism

“Canada is concerned by disturbing reports of increasing Islamic extremism and deterioration in the promotion and protection of human rights in the Maldives,” continued Baird’s statement yesterday (September 29).

“The government and judiciary must demonstrate a clearer commitment to dealing with these issues, including indications of domestic support for the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL),” said Baird.

A number of Maldivians are reported to have been killed this year while waging Jihad in the Syrian civil war, while local groups marched through the capital this month waving the the ISIS/ISIL flag.

‘To hell with democracy’, ‘Democracy is a failed system’, ‘Shariah gave you the rights, not democracy”, ‘Shariah is the only solution’, read the placards of the 150 demonstrators.

Government leaders have spoken out against atrocities committed by ISIS forces in the Middle East as well as discouraging Maldivians from participating in foreign conflicts.

“IS is using the veil of religion as a pretext for inflicting terror, and committing violations of human rights,” said Dunya in August.

“Their philosophy blatantly violates the fundamental principles of peace, tolerance, and unity which are advocated by Islam, and their actions have tarnished the world’s perception of our great religion. A religion of peace and tolerance.”

Both former President Mohamed Nasheed and an independent report commissioned by the Maldivian Democracy Network have suggested radicalised gangs were likely to have been involved in the disappearance of Rilwan 53 days ago.

After Nasheed’s comments at an MDP rally last week, MP Eva Abdulla received a threat suggesting the next MDP event would be attacked by a suicide bomber. Threats sent to journalists last week warned against reporting on the continuing spate of attacks.

“This is a war between the laadheenee [secular or irreligious] MDP mob and religious people. We advise the media not to come in the middle of this. We won’t hesitate to kill you,” read one widely circulated SMS.

Nasheed has argued that the Maldives now represents a fertile recruiting ground for international jihadi movements, suggesting that the government’s inaction posed a serious danger to the security of the country.

Attempts to shut down congregations considered to be conducting unauthorised sermons, labelled “extremist” by the Islamic minister, have proved unsuccessful in recent months.

A Facebook page called Islamic State in Maldives promoting IS in the country was discovered last month, which shared photos of protests calling for a ban on Israeli tourists where protesters carried the IS flag.

Moreover, a new site called Haqqu and Twitter account sprang up recently featuring IS-related news and publications in Dhivehi as well as translations of a sermon by self-proclaimed Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Rilwan was one of the first journalists in the Maldives to write in depth about Maldivian jihadis, receiving intimidation from online groups as a result of his research.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UPR report shared with judiciary before submission, says HRCM at Supreme Court trial

The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) shared its Universal Period Review (UPR) report with the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) and sought feedback ahead of submission to the UN Human Rights Council, the commission’s lawyer told the Supreme Court today.

The DJA – which functions under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court – did not respond to the request for commentary on the report or object to its content, the lawyer noted at the first hearing of the trial.

All five HRCM members are on trial after the apex court initiated suo moto proceedings in relation to the UPR report, which suggested that the Supreme Court’s control over the judiciary was undermining powers of lower courts.

At the beginning of the hearing, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain reportedly said that the HRCM’s report contained false and misleading information concerning procedural matters of the judiciary.

The suo moto proceedings – which allows the court to act as both prosecution and judge – were initiated to hold the commission’s members accountable under Article 141 of the Constitution, Article 9 of the Judicature Act, and Supreme Court regulations, the chief justice said.

Article 141(b) states, “The Supreme Court shall be the highest authority for the administration of justice in the Maldives.”

Article 141(c) states, “No officials performing public functions, or any other persons, shall interfere with and influence the functions of the courts,” while section (d) states, “Persons or bodies performing public functions, through legislative and other measures, must assist and protect the courts to ensure the independence, eminence, dignity, impartiality, accessibility and effectiveness of the courts.”

The commission’s attorney Maumoon Hameed explained that each UN member state was required to submit a report for the UPR.

The UPR is a state-driven process that reviews the human rights records of all 193 UN member states every four years, based on submissions by the government, the UN, NGOs and human rights commissions. The Maldives’ review is scheduled to take place in April or May 2015.

In a press release today, the HRCM said it submitted as evidence information regarding the UPR process as well as commentary received from various state institutions.

“At today’s hearing, the commission requested an opportunity to submit further information and evidence,” the press release stated.

“The Supreme Court adjourned today’s hearing. The commission has not yet been informed of a date for the next hearing.”

The next hearing has since been scheduled for 1:30pm on Sunday, September 28.

Noting that Supreme Court decisions could not be challenged as it was the highest court of appeal, Hameed had, however, asked for five working days to prepare a defence.

Control of judiciary

Less than two weeks before the parliamentary polls in March, the Supreme Court had charged Elections Commission Chair Fuwad Thowfeek and Deputy Chair Ahmed Fayaz with contempt of court and dismissed the pair under unprecedented suo moto proceedings.

Subsequent changes to contempt of court regulations made in June authorised courts to penalise individuals for any expression, action, gesture, or piece of writing “inside or outside a courtroom” that could be considered contempt of court.

Meanwhile, in a press statement yesterday, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party noted that under Article 27 of the HRCM Act a case could only be filed against the commission regarding published reports following an inquiry which proves components of the report to have been false.

In its UPR report, the HRCM stated that the Supreme Court’s control of the judiciary was weakening judicial powers vested in lower courts.

“Supreme Court issued a circular ordering all state institutions not to communicate to individual courts regarding any information relating to the judiciary except through the Supreme Court. HRCM is facing difficulties in gathering information related to judiciary due to lack of cooperation,” the report stated.

Moreover, the report noted that “due to shortfalls in judicial system, functioning of the judiciary is often questionable on various grounds including independence, transparency, interference, influence, competency, consistency, and accessibility.”

Through a raft of regulations enacted in recent months, the Supreme Court has sought to consolidate control over administrative affairs of the judiciary.

In a comprehensive report on the Maldivian judiciary released in May 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, wrote that centralising administrative decisions in the hands of the Supreme Court “has undoubtedly contributed to the strong impression that lower courts are excluded from the administration of justice and decision-making processes.”

The Maldives representative to the UNHRC subsequently accused the special rapporteur of undermining the sovereignty of the country.

Criticism of the Supreme Court’s role in the electoral process by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay last October was meanwhile described as “ill-informed” and “irresponsible” by former President Dr Mohamed Waheed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court initiates suo moto proceedings against Human Rights Commission

The Supreme Court has initiated suo moto proceedings again the Human Rights Commission of Maldives in relation to a report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) last week.

All five commission members were called to the court this afternoon before being handed a summons for a hearing on Wednesday (September 24).

HRCM members have told Minivan News today that they face numerous charges, though lawyers have advised them not to give further details at this point.

The commission’s report – submitted as part of the UN Universal Periodic Review – criticised the court’s growing powers, suggesting that control of the judiciary by the Supreme Court was damaging the lower courts.

“[D]ue to shortfalls in judicial system, functioning of the judiciary is often questionable on various grounds including independence, transparency, interference, influence, competency, consistency, and accessibility,” read the report.

The Supreme Court’s use of suo moto proceedings – which allow the court to initiate hearings and act as both plaintiff and judge – mirrors proceedings use against the Elections Commission (EC) earlier this year.

EC President Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz were charged with contempt of court and disobedience to order as a result of testimony given in the People’s Majlis independent commissions oversight committee.

The unprecedented suo moto procedures were used to remove both Thowfeek and Fayaz from their posts just weeks before the Majlis elections in March, with both given 6 month suspended sentences.

Subsequent changes to contempt of court regulations made in June authorised courts to initiate legal proceedings and punish individuals for any expression, action, gesture, or piece of writing “inside or outside a courtroom” that could be considered contempt of court.

United Nations

The 2006 Human Right Commission Act lists the promotion and protection of human rights in accordance with international conventions along with the assistance and support of relevant NGOs as basic objectives of the commission.

Additionally, Article 27 of the HRCM Act grant members immunity from prosecution in relation to acts carried out as part of the commission’s duties.

Article 27 (b) meanwhile says that a case can only be filed against the commission regarding published reports following an inquiry which proves components of the report to have been false.

UN bodies have been amongst those most critical of the Maldivian justice system in recent months, with a report into the judiciary by a UN Special Rapporteur last year making particular note of the centralised administration and the failure to address human rights violations.

The report was subsequently described by the Maldives representative to the UNHRC as undermining the sovereignty of the country.

Criticism of the Supreme Court’s role in the electoral process by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay last October was subsequently described as “ill-informed” and “irresponsible” by former President Dr Mohamed Waheed.

Waheed is amongst the delegates representing the Maldives at the 69th session of the UN General Assembly, along with Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon.

Earlier this week, on the occasion of the Maldives’ 49th year of UN membership, Dunya praised the organisation as “the only forum where every nation in the world, big or small, has an equal say”.

The UNHCR’s periodic review studies the human rights records of all 193 UN member states, aiming to prompt, support, and expand the protection of human rights. After having been reviewed first in 2010, the Maldives will again undergo inspection in 2015.

Speaking to Minivan News last week after receiving her summons for today’s hearing, HRCM member Jeehan Mahmood defended the UPR report.

“It’s the one chance we get to bring the world’s attention to issues that the state chooses to ignore on domestic forums”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

HRCM responds to criticism from the education ministry over UN submission

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) has responded to criticism from the Ministry of Education regarding the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council.

In a press statement released yesterday (September 21), HRCM denied the accusations made by the Education Ministry that the section on education had been based on an outdated 2008 UNESCO report, saying it had used a joint unpublished report by UNICEF and the Ministry of Gender and Family from 2009.

The Supreme Court has today initiated suo moto proceedings against HRCM members in relation to the document, while the President’s Office has this week suggested that some phrasing regarding the death penalty is misleading.

The HRCM said that the education ministry had been given the opportunity to comment on the draft of the UPR report but failed to make any recommendations.

“A draft of the report was sent to the high ranking officials of the education ministry on August 31 to comment on it. However, we did not receive any inquiries from the ministry on the validity of the data in the report nor did we receive any criticism of the report,” said HRCM.

The ministry has claimed, however, that the commission had chosen not to include information it sent in the report.

The UPR report states that, even though “corporal punishment is prohibited in schools, 8 percent of the students attending secondary schools have experienced violence perpetrated by teachers”.

The Ministry of Education argued that the statement was outdated and that no study had been done during the last six years to identify the changes in the education system.

In yesterday’s statement, the HRCM countered the argument by saying that the UPR is intended to evaluate the situation over the last four years and said that there are numerous studies which would validate the statement including the conclusions sent by international conventions.

The dispute over the report’s content comes at a time of an ongoing investigation by the education ministry and the Maldives Police Service into an alleged bullying case by a teacher at Imaaduhdheen School.

In the report, the HRCM also urged the government to pass the Education Act and to make concrete efforts to eradicate the disparities in the availability of educational services.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Human Rights Commission summoned to Supreme Court

Members of the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) have been summoned to appear before the Supreme Court next week.

The summons closely follows the HRCM’s report for the UN Human Rights Council’s (HRC) Universal Periodic Review, submitted earlier this week which criticised the court’s growing powers.

“Judicial system is controlled and influenced by the Supreme Court, weakening judicial powers vested in other superior courts and lower courts,” wrote the commision for the HRC’s examination of human rights in the Maldives.

Members of the commission have revealed that the summons, originally for today (September 18) has been delayed until September 22 due to the current absence of members from the capital, Malé.

The President’s Office has today criticised the report, suggesting in particular that sections on the death penalty could mislead international opinion.

Minivan News understands that the letter of the Supreme Court summons says only that the HRCM is being summoned “for the purposes of the court”.

Changes to contempt of court regulations made in June authorised courts to initiate legal proceedings and punish individuals for any expression, action, gesture, or piece of writing “inside or outside a courtroom” that could be considered contempt of court.

Contempt of court charges were also used to dismiss senior members of the Elections Commission (EC) just weeks before March’s Majlis elections.

Constitutionally protected testimonies given to the Majlis was included in evidence used to remove EC President Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz for violating article 141 of the Constitution – which prohibits interference with the functioning of the courts.

The HRCM was accused of interfering in the work of the Juvenile Court earlier this year following a report on the infamous case of an abused 15-year-old sentenced to flogging. The court summoned commission members after suggesting the report contained false information.

Through a raft of regulations enacted in recent months, the Maldives Supreme Court has sought to consolidate control over administrative affairs of the judiciary.

The HRCM report to the UN said that “due to shortfalls in judicial system, functioning of the judiciary is often questionable on various grounds including independence, transparency, interference, influence, competency, consistency, and accessibility”.

Criticism and confusion

The report – part of a study of the human rights records of all 193 UN member states – has been criticised by the President’s Office, which has suggested the report was “very confusing” on the death penalty issue.

The ‘Child Rights’ section of the report calls for the abolition of the “death penalty” for minors after moves to end the 60-year moratorium earlier this year.

While the revised Penal Code, passed in April, ensures those under 15-years cannot be held criminally responsible, minors can still be charged for Hadd offences, with death sentences not carried out until 18-years of age.

“The Government of Maldives is not going to give the death penalty to children,” President’s Office Spokesman Ibrahim Muaz told Minivan News today.

Comments from the Swiss delegation on the Maldives’ death penalty policy, made during the general debate session of Tuesday’s HRC meeting, prompted an angry response from Maldivian counterparts.

After being criticised by the Swiss for changing legislation “to permit the death penalty for children as young as 7 years old”, the Maldives itself attacked statements “rooted on misrepresentation and media speculation”.

Legal sources told Minivan News that, while the new Penal Code does include the “immaturity excuse” – removing criminal responsibility from those under 15, Article 15c still allows for minors to be held accountable for hadd offences.

Human Rights Commission member Jeehan Mahmood has defended the overall report submitted for the UPR.

“It’s the one chance we get to bring the world’s attention to issues that the state chooses to ignore on domestic forums”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

The Maldivian judiciary is controlled and influenced by the Supreme Court to the detriment of superior and lower courts, states the Human Rights Commission of Maldives’ (HRCM) report to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council’s Universal Period Review (UPR).

“Judicial system is controlled and influenced by the Supreme Court, weakening judicial powers vested in other superior courts and lower courts,” the HRCM contended.

“Supreme Court issued a circular ordering all state institutions not to communicate to individual courts regarding any information relating to the judiciary except through the Supreme Court. HRCM is facing difficulties in gathering information related to judiciary due to lack of cooperation.”

The UPR studies the human rights records of all 193 UN member states, aiming to prompt, support, and expand the protection of human rights. After having been reviewed first in 2010, the Maldives will again undergo inspection in 2015.

Through a raft of regulations enacted in recent months, the Maldives Supreme Court has sought to consolidate control over administrative affairs of the judiciary.

The new regulations require Supreme Court approval for judges seeking transfer to a different court and the court’s permission for judges and judicial employees to attend overseas workshops, seminars, conferences, or training programmes.

In May, the Supreme Court enacted new rules stipulating that the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) – tasked with management of the courts and public relations as well as providing facilities, training, archiving systems and security for judges – will function in accordance with policies set by the apex court bench and under the direct supervision of a designated justice.

Former Judicial Service Commission (JSC) member Aishath Velezinee told Minivan News at the time “the appointment of a Supreme Court judge to [oversee] the DJA is tantamount to control of the courts.”

In a comprehensive report on the Maldivian judiciary released in May 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, wrote that centralising administrative decisions in the hands of the Supreme Court “has undoubtedly contributed to the strong impression that lower courts are excluded from the administration of justice and decision-making processes.”

She also referred to “several complaints about internal tensions in the judiciary, where lower courts are left with the feeling that the Supreme Court only works for its own interests, without taking into account the situation of other judges and magistrates.”

Access to justice

In the ‘access to justice’ section of its report, the HRCM noted that the enforcement of a new penal code would be “a positive development towards a better legislative framework.”

“However, due to shortfalls in judicial system, functioning of the judiciary is often questionable on various grounds including independence, transparency, interference, influence, competency, consistency, and accessibility,” the report observed.

“State responded to UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers as trying to undermine the country’s court system. [International Commission of Jurists] has issued a number of recommendations to build competency of judiciary with no progressive action by the state,” it continued.

“According to [Transparency Maldives], majority of public lack confidence in the court system. Majority of cases, both criminal and civil, often get delayed for more than a year, and is prosecuted in the capital which forces plaintiffs and defendants from atolls to travel to and stay in capital, which is costly.”

The HRCM recommended implementation of recommendations by both the Special Rapporteur and the ICJ as well as codification and harmonisation of Shariah law and common law in accordance with the Constitution.

“Enact important laws leaving no room for inconsistencies in judicial decision making,” read the recommendations.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court approval required for transfer of judges

The Supreme Court has issued new rules requiring judges requesting transfer to a different court to seek approval from the apex court.

The rules (Dhivehi) enacted yesterday stipulate that judges of lower courts seeking transfer must write to the Supreme Court stating the reason for the change.

“The transfer of a judge of a lower court from one court to another shall be decided by a majority of the Supreme Court bench,” states section five of the rules.

Former Judicial Services Commission member Aishath Velezinee has accused the court of taking administrative control of the judiciary, while the UN has previously suggested the independence of lower courts is being compromised.

Once a decision is reached, the new rules state that the reappointment would be made by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) based on the Supreme Court’s proposal. The judge would be given time to conclude cases before the transfer is finalised.

Judges must have served at least two years in the court they were appointed to before the request could be considered.

Before proposing the transfer to the JSC, the rules state that the Supreme Court bench must ensure the importance of the judge working in a different court based on academic qualifications and experience and consider whether the judge has relevant experience better suited to a different court.

For evaluation of the request, the apex court should also consider the quality of work done by the judge, the number of cases heard by the court or judicial area, the number of unfinished cases, the number of judges in the court or judicial area to which the transfer has been requested, and the population of the judicial area.

Outspoken whistleblower, Velezinee, told Minivan News today that the Supreme Court was taking over functions of the JSC.

“The Supreme Court is systematically taking control of the judiciary and misconstruing the Constitution for their benefit,” she said.

“The JSC is controlled by the Supreme Court and remains silent on these matters, facilitating the Supreme Court take over.”

The promotion and transfer of judges was previously overseen solely by the JSC. Last month, the JSC demoted former Chief Judge of the High Court, Ahmed Shareef, to the Juvenile Court as a disciplinary measure.

Under the Judges Act passed in 2010, transfer of judges was to be made by the Judicial Council, before the Supreme Court struck down the relevant articles in the Judicature Act, abolishing the council.

“Take over”

In May, the Supreme Court enacted new rules stipulating that the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) – tasked with management of the courts and public relations as well as providing facilities, training, archiving systems and security for judges – will function in accordance with policies set by the apex court bench and under the direct supervision of a designated justice.

Velezinee stressed at the time that the administration of justice and the administration of the courts were “two different though interconnected issues.”

“The Supreme Court is misconstruing article 156 of the Constitution and the appointment of a Supreme Court judge to [oversee] the DJA is tantamount to control of the courts,” she contended.

In a comprehensive report on the Maldivian judiciary released in May 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, wrote that “the dissolution of the Judicial Council and the direct control of the Supreme Court over the [DJA] have had the effect of centralising administrative decisions in the hands of the Supreme Court.”

“This has undoubtedly contributed to the strong impression that lower courts are excluded from the administration of justice and decision-making processes,” she noted.

She also referred to “several complaints about internal tensions in the judiciary, where lower courts are left with the feeling that the Supreme Court only works for its own interests, without taking into account the situation of other judges and magistrates.”

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court informed lower courts that it would be appointing magistrates to take over cases where magistrates have recused themselves.

The apex court noted that it has learned of magistrate courts writing to the JSC to appoint magistrates in cases where the presiding magistrate had excused himself.

Noting that the Supreme Court was the “highest authority for the administration of justice” under Article 141 of the Constitution and referring to a circular issued on August 10, 2011 – which stated that the Supreme Court would specify rules for appointing magistrates following recusal –  Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain asked magistrate courts to write to the Supreme Court if a magistrate recuses himself from a case.

In May, the Supreme Court also formulated new regulations making it mandatory for judges and judicial employees to seek permission to attend overseas workshops, seminars, conferences, or training programmes.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)