Tag: supreme court

Supreme Court to appoint magistrates following recusal

The Supreme Court has informed lower courts that it would be appointing magistrates to take over cases where magistrates have recused themselves.

In a letter (Dhivehi) from Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain addressed to lower courts on Thursday (September 4), the apex court noted that it has learned of magistrate courts writing to the Judicial Service Commission 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 –  the chief justice asked magistrate courts to write to the Supreme Court if a magistrate recuses himself from a case.

In May, the Supreme Court promulgated new rules stipulating that the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) will function in accordance with policies set by the apex court bench and under the direct supervision of a designated justice.

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 direct control of the Supreme Court over the Department of Judicial Administration 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 wrote.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court ceases hearing appeals challenging procedural rulings

The High Court has ceased accepting appeals challenging procedural decisions made by lower courts following a circular issued by the Supreme Court on August 24.

The Supreme Court stated in the circular (Dhivehi) that the constitutional right to appeal verdicts or judgments delivered in civil or criminal cases did not extend to rulings on procedural points raised during trials.

The apex court stated that procedural rulings could only be contested by appealing the final judgement.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Kodey councillors sworn in seven months after election

Three councillors-elect for the island council of Gaaf Alif Kodey took their oaths of office on Thursday (August 21) seven months after the local council elections in January, reports local media.

Independent members Murthala Saleem and Ahmed Ibrahim along with Adhaalath Party member Siyam Mohamed were sworn in by Gaaf Alif Villigili Magistrate Azeem Hassan at a ceremony at the Kodey school.

A fourth councillor-elect, Shan Mohamed, meanwhile informed the Local Government Authority (LGA) that he no longer wished to serve on the council.

Shan told Sun Online that he has moved to Malé since January’s polls and begun practicing law in the capital.

Elections Commission (EC) Director Ahmed Abubakur, however, insisted that Shan must first take the oath of office and then resign if he did not want the seat.

He added that the EC would make a decision once the LGA informs the commission of Shan’s letter.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s annulment of the Kodey island council election.

In February, the High Court ordered a revote for the five-member island council. The decision was, however, appealed at the Supreme Court by the EC.

In its verdict (Dhivehi) – delivered more than four months after the appeal was filed – the apex court ordered a revote to be held among the two fifth-placed candidates and the sixth-placed candidate.

The fifth-placed candidates received 88 votes while the candidate in sixth place received 87 votes.

As the margin between the candidates for the last seat was just one vote, the High Court had invalidated the election after it emerged that an elderly Kodey man residing in Dhaandhoo had cast his ballot in the wrong box.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Attorney General’s Office postpones JSC lawyer election following Supreme Court order

The Attorney General’s (AG) Office has postponed an election for a lawyer to represent the legal community on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) following a Supreme Court order.

The AG office announced the postponement on Thursday night (August 14) after the Supreme Court struck down section 11(a) of the regulations enacted for conducting the polls, which states that polling mechanisms would be established on inhabited islands with at least five registered voters.

The Supreme Court issued an order (Dhivehi) on Thursday afternoon annulling the clause and declared that all licensed lawyers eligible to vote in the elections – including magistrates of island courts – should be able to do so anywhere in the country without registering.

Following the apex court order, the AG office explained in a press statement that it has repealed the procedural regulations as the “essence” of the annulled clause was ensuring “secrecy of the ballot”, which could not be assured after it was struck down.

The election had been scheduled for August 21. The AG office said it would announce a new polling date later.

The election had previously been delayed after Gaaf Dhaal Fiyori Magistrate Abdul Razzak Mohamed filed a case at the Civil Court seeking annulment of section 11(a).

After issuing a stay order postponing the election pending a judgment, the Civil Court ruled in late July that annulling the requirement would violate the secrecy of the ballot.

Judge Ali Rasheed Hussain noted that allowing voting mechanisms on islands where only one lawyer casts a ballot would compromise secrecy.

Speaking to Minivan News at the time, former Deputy Prosecutor General Hussein Shameem – among the four candidates for the seat – welcomed the Civil Court verdict.

“The verdict yesterday proves the Fiyori magistrate had no case. He has caused an undue delay to the process. An election involves the rights of a group of people, not just one individual. I hope the courts consider this in the future and that there are no more delays,” he said.

In addition to Shameem, the other candidates are Anas Abdul Sattar, Mohamed Faisal, and Latheefa Qasim.

Lawyer Mohamed Fareed, however, withdrew his candidacy on July 10, expressing concern over judicial interference in the election following the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing all licensed lawyers, including sitting MPs and judges, to vote in the election.

“The belief that an election in the Maldives may proceed without Supreme Court interference is against the facts, reality. This is the reality now,” he said at a press conference.

Had voting mechanisms been set up on every island, magistrates would have been forced to vote for the judiciary-backed candidate Latheefa Qasim, he suggested.

Latheefa is a public relations staff at the Department of Judicial Administration and had served on the JSC for a year as former President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s appointee to the commission.

Former Attorney General Husnu Suood meanwhile accused the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives of attempting to fix the composition of the new JSC.

Although he was skeptical of reform through the commission, Suood urged lawyers to back Shameem in order to ensure transparency within the JSC.

“If there is a single effective candidate, I believe they can give us information and work to make the JSC more transparent. There is a huge difference between one person being there and none being there,” he said.

In July, parliament voted for PPM MP Ibrahim Riza to represent the People’s Majlis on JSC.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court overturns High Court’s annulment of Kodey island council election

The Supreme Court yesterday overturned the High Court’s annulment of the island council election on the island of Kodey in Gaaf Alif atoll.

Following the local council elections in January, the High Court in February annulled the polls in Kodey and ordered a revote for the five-member island council.

The Elections Commission (EC) subsequently appealed the decision at the Supreme Court.

In its verdict (Dhivehi) – delivered more than six months after the council elections – the apex court, however, ordered a revote to be held among the two fifth-placed candidates and the sixth-placed candidate.

The fifth-placed candidates received 88 votes while the candidate in sixth place received 87 votes.

As the margin between the candidates for the last seat was just one vote, the High Court had annulled the election after it emerged that an elderly Kodey man residing in Dhandhoo had cast his ballot in the wrong box.

Earlier this month, the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives MP Jameel Usman – who represents the Kodey constituency – had expressed concern with the lack of an elected council in the island.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MPs debate allowing civil servants to campaign for public office

The government has proposed revisions to the Civil Service Act that would allow civil servants to campaign for public office without resigning from their jobs.

“If these amendments are passed, our civil service employees would be able to campaign for elected posts while remaining in their jobs and have the opportunity contest elections,” explained Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Mohamed Ameeth Ahmed Manik at today’s sitting of the People’s Majlis.

Presenting the legislation (Dhivehi) on behalf of the government, the MP for Raa Madduvari explained that the amendments to the 2007 law were part of a raft of bills proposed by the government to bring outdated laws in line with the new constitution adopted in August 2008.

Opposition MPs have expressed concern that the changes may lead to the politicisation of the civil service, which currently employs just under 25,000 Maldivians – over 7 percent of the population.

Ameeth meanwhile noted that the Supreme Court had ruled Article 53 of the act was unconstitutional.

In September 2011, the Supreme Court backed a ruling against the prevention of civil servants’ participation in political activities.

The courts referred to Article 30(a) of the Constitution, which states, “Every citizen has the right to establish and to participate in the activities of political parties.”

The case was filed at High Court in late 2008 by Mohamed Hanim, who was demoted from his post as director general at the Ministry of Youth and Sports after he spoke at a campaign rally of the then-opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party.

Ameeth noted today, however, that the revisions would establish boundaries for civil servants who wish to be active in politics.

The amendments would prohibit civil servants from using powers to directly or indirectly influence political activities as well as participating in political activity either during official working hours or in a way that casts doubt on impartiality in the performance of duties.

Additionally, civil servants would be prohibited from filling any post in a political party or submitting a form to register a political party.

The restrictions were necessary to ensure that the civil service was free of political bias and undue influence, Ameeth said.

The amendments also stipulate that political appointees, judges, employees at state-owned enterprises, soldiers, and staff at the judiciary and parliament would not be considered civil servants.

Article 77(d) of the Civil Service Act – which prohibits campaigning for public office – would meanwhile be abolished.

Despite Ameeth’s claims, however, the bill does not propose abolishing Article 51 of the act, which stipulates that civil servants must resign six months ahead of contesting an election.

Conceding that the draft legislation could have shortcomings, Ameeth appealed for MPs to offer “constructive” criticism and noted that stakeholders could be consulted at the committee stage to address concerns of civil servants.

Debate

In the ensuing debate, opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ali Azim alleged that the main purpose of the bill was to “force all civil servants to join PPM.”

He further claimed that employees hired for government-owned corporations were forced to sign PPM membership forms.

MDP MP Abdulla Shahid – former speaker of parliament – contended that the amendments would return civil servants to the “enslavement” of the years before 2007, warning that it could be used to dismiss large numbers of civil servants.

Civil servants could be fired if they refuse to attend “certain rallies” or put up campaign posters, he claimed.

MDP MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik meanwhile called on the government to set a minimum wage of MVR4,500 (US$292) a month for civil servants.

Statistics published by the Civil Service Commission in June showed an estimated 40 percent of civil servants are paid less than MVR4,999 (US$324) per month.

MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi noted that current President Abdulla Yameen – who resigned from the government and formed the People’s Alliance party in 2008 – had backed the legislation in the 16th parliament (2003-2008).

The prohibitions in the law were intended to establish a “professional civil service” and ensure “institutional memory,” she said.

Civil servants would have an undue advantage over other candidates since they could misuse their authority, she suggested.

Majority Leader Ahmed Nihan, however, insisted that former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom deserved “full credit” for creating an independent civil service.

The present administration also deserved gratitude and praise from civil servants for ensuring the right to participate in political activity, he added.

MP Ahmed Amir of the Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) – coalition partner of the ruling PPM – meanwhile suggested seeking advice from the Supreme Court when the legislation is reviewed by committee.

While the amendments prohibit civil servants from being a signatory to a request to form a political party, Amir noted that the constitution guarantees the right to form political parties to all citizens.

PPM MP Abdulla Rifau said it was “regrettable” that parliament had not amended the law in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

The PPM government would ensure that civil servants receive a pay rise when the economy improves, he added.

Rifau went on to accuse employees in the health sector of “pestering” the government with politically motivated acts of sabotage.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court enacts new contempt of court regulations

The Supreme Court has enacted new regulations authorising 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.

The contempt of court regulations (Dhivehi) promulgated on July 24 states that its purpose is “establishing justice, removing obstacles to trials, and upholding the honour and dignity of courts.”

“Contempt of court is a crime. And holding courts and its judges in contempt, and committing any act that could diminish the honour and dignity of courts is against Article 141(c) and (d) of the Constitution,” states section three of the regulations.

Spoken or written words as well as deeds and gestures that constitute contempt of court include portraying the judiciary in a negative light, an utterance or action that demeans a court, a judge, or court officer, “criticising or berating a court or a judge, or committing any act that causes loss of respect and dignity of a court or a judge, or attempting to bring the court into disrepute.”

Other actions include obstruction of ongoing trials, non-compliance with court orders or verdicts, refusal to provide testimony at a trial, refusal to answer summons to appear at court or flying overseas without permission, and use of obscene language inside a courtroom.

Additionally, causing physical harm to a judge or a court officer, damaging court property, bringing cameras or recording devices into courtrooms without permission, leaving a courtroom during ongoing proceedings, causing disorder at a trial, and using a public forum or the media to unduly influence an ongoing trial would also be considered contempt of court.

Initiating proceedings

While judges could immediately take punitive measures for contempt of court either during trials or within court premises, the regulations stipulate that the state must press charges and initiate criminal prosecution for words or deeds constituting contempt of court outside a courtroom.

However, the Supreme Court, High Court, and lower courts could initiate proceedings if either is the target of the contemptuous remark or action.

The apex court meanwhile has the discretion to initiate proceedings in cases involving contempt towards any court or judge.

If an institution exhibits contempt of court, the regulation states that its most senior official must bear responsibility and face charges.

The accused party in contempt of court trials would have the right to seek legal representation and defend themselves verbally or in writing. An odd number of judges must preside over such trials.

The accused could avail themselves of legal defence arguments used in criminal trials while evidence presented at such trials “with good will or intention to assist in the dispensation of justice” would not be considered contempt of court.

While providing information to the public regarding ongoing trials “truthfully and impartially” is permissible, the regulation states that courts could prohibit dissemination of information at its choosing.

Punishment

Persons found guilty of contempt of court during proceedings at a hearing or trial could be sentenced to up to 15 days in jail, placed under house arrest for up to one month, or fined up to MVR10,000 (US$649).

For other cases of contempt of court during proceedings or inside court premises, the regulations state that persons could be sentenced pursuant to Articles 85 through 88 of the penal code.

However, section 13 – which deals with punishment – does not specify the punishment for instances of contempt of court outside the courtroom

Moreover, sentences passed during proceedings or following a contempt of court trial cannot be appealed at a higher court. However, the Supreme Court has the authority to take measures or issue orders while a contempt of court trial is ongoing at a lower court.

‘Sumoto’

On March 9, less than two weeks before the parliamentary elections, the Supreme Court stripped former Elections Commission (EC) Chair Fuwad Thowfeek and Deputy Chair Ahmed Fayaz of their membership in the independent commission over contempt of court charges.

The Supreme Court had summoned EC members on February 27 and began a surprise trial on charges of contempt of court under new ‘sumoto’ regulations – promulgated in February – that allow the apex court to initiate proceedings and act as both prosecution and judge.

Meanwhile, in January, the Supreme Court suspended former Attorney General Husnu Suood and ordered police to investigate the lawyer for alleged contempt of court. The Prosecutor General’s Office, however, dropped the charges in March.

The former AG had represented the EC in an election annulment case before being ejected and barred from proceedings.

Moreover, the court also sought criminal charges against opposition-aligned private broadcaster Raajje TV over a report criticising the judiciary while Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain threatened legal action against media organisations or journalists who disseminate false or inauthentic information concerning the judiciary.

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party MPs Alhan Fahmy and Imthiyaz Fahmy were meanwhile charged with contempt of court for criticising the apex court on Raajje TV.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Candidates threaten boycott after judicial interference in JSC lawyer election

Four of the five lawyers competing in an upcoming poll to elect a lawyer to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) have threatened a boycott after judicial interference.

Lawyers Hussein Shameem, Mohamed Fareed, Anas Abdul Sattar, and Mohamed Faisal expressed concern over reports the Supreme Court may allow judges in magistrate courts in the islands to vote via fax on July 13 – a move, which would violate the secrecy of the ballot.

The attorney general had initially compiled regulations barring judges who have lawyer permits from voting to elect a representative from the lawyer community.

But the Supreme Court on June 23 ruled that all licensed lawyers, including judges and MPs, would be eligible to vote in polls.

Lawyers have said the decision allows judges undue influence in electing a representative from the legal community, pointing out judges already have three representatives on the ten-member commission.

AG Mohamed Anil then extended the initial deadline for candidates to submit applications from June 24 to June 30.

Subsequently, a public relations staff member at the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA), Latheefa Qasim, applied for the position. Latheefa worked at the DJA until she was appointed as President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s representative to the ten-member commission.

Latheefa was replaced when new President Abdulla Yameen took oath of office in November 2013.

The four candidates have said Latheefa appears to be backed by the judiciary.

“There is a conflict of interest when an individual employed with the judiciary to improve its image is running for an oversight body,” Shameem said.

Fareed said Latheefa running in the election is like disgraced Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed standing for the position.

Meanwhile, both Anas and Faisal have raised questions over Latheefa’s eligibility, noting JSC regulations state no JSC member can run for consecutive terms.

Faisal said he believed Latheefa had completed a term as she had sat in the commission as a presidential appointee in the current term.

If Latheefa is eligible to run, any current member could resign now, and run again claiming they have not completed a full term, he said.

“There is doubt over whether Latheefa Qasim is standing on her own initiative or is being fielded by other interests. I say this because she submitted her application after the Supreme Court ruling, when the deadline was extended,” he added.

Latheefa was not responding to calls despite repeated attempts at the time of press.

All four candidates insisted the criticisms were not a personal attack on Latheefa.

The four met last week and discussed whether to field a single candidate against Latheefa, but decided to run separately, claiming they still stand a fair chance of winning elections as long as the secrecy of the ballot is protected.

Polling booths are to be set up in Arabiyya School in Malé and in islands where more than five eligible voters are registered to vote. They are Haa Alif atoll Ihavandhoo, Haa Dhaal atoll Kulhudhuffushi, Thaa atoll Veymandoo, Laamu atoll Fonadhoo and Gaaf Alif atoll Villingili.

“There is no point of contesting elections if the secrecy of the ballot is affected. There are approximately 136 magistrates court judges – a number than can significantly change the election outcome. If there is a perceived judiciary backed candidate, they will be forced to vote for the candidate endorsed by the judiciary, if the secrecy of ballot is violated,” Faisal said.

Fareed said the four candidates are still ready to field a single candidate or boycott the election if necessary should the judiciary interfere in election procedures.

“We will not blindly obey the Supreme Court’s decisions,” Fareed said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

EC reinstates dissolved political parties as per SC order

The Elections Commission (EC) has reinstated eight small political parties on the Supreme Court’s advice.

The commission had dissolved the eight parties in February as they did not have a membership of 3,000 as required by a Supreme Court modification of the Political Party Act.

However, the Supreme Court subsequently sacked Elections Commission President Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz for disobedience to order and contempt of court.

The EC sought the apex court’s advice and following a letter on June 12, the EC has now decided to reinstate the Islamic Democratic Party, Maldivian Social Democratic Party, Social Liberal Party, People’s Party, Maldivian National Congress, People’s Alliance, Maldivian Labor Party and Dhivehi Qaumee Party.

The number of registered political parties in Maldives now stands at fourteen.

Political Parties Act

The People’s Majlis passed the Political Parties Act in December 2012. Article 11 of the act required a minimum of 10,000 members requests for party registration, while Article 8 (b) gave parties with less than 10,000 members a three month period to increase membership or face dissolution.

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan – whose own Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) was facing dissolution – refused to ratify the bill. But on March 5 2013, with unanimous support from both parliament’s minority leader and majority leader, the Majlis overruled the presidential veto and forced the the bill  into law.

In the same month the Elections commission dissolved eleven registered political parties under the Act.

Within days Attorney General Azima Shakoor asked the Supreme Court to declare existing smaller political parties could not be dissolved. The Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) also intervened in the case.

In September 2013, the SC voided articles 11 and 8 (b) of the Political Parties Act, declaring them to be in violation of Article 16 of the constitution which states that the People’s Majlis can only limit constitutional rights through legislation to an extent “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

The SC claimed the Political Party Act narrowed the constitutional right to establish political parties and participate in political party activity.

The verdict, supported by the entire Supreme Court bench, also declared 3,000 members to be the minimum requirement for political party registration as per the political party regulation of 2005, until the parliament amended the Political Party Act in accordance with guidelines provided in the ruling.

In December 2013 Gaumee Ithihadh Party of former president Dr. Mohame Waheed and Maldives Reform Movement founded by former Attorney General and President of MDP Dr Mohamed Munavvar was voluntarily dissolved, leaving the number of parties in transition at nine.

February dissolution

On February 6, the Elections Commission dissolved eight political parties for not having a minimum of 3000 registered members and gave them a three month period to increase membership. The MDA with approximately eight thousand members survived the dissolution.

In the same month, the SC initiated a contempt of court charge against the EC under new suo moto regulations which allow the Supreme Court to initiate proceedings, prosecute and pass judgement. The five member bench accused the EC of disobeying orders in dissolving the eight parties.

SC reached a verdict in March 2014, stripping Elections Commission (EC) President Fuwad Thowfeek and Vice President Ahmed Fayaz Hassan of their membership in the commission and sentencing the former to a suspended prison term of six months.

In the controversial verdict, SC stated dissolving parties on the basis that a political party’s registry should include 3,000 members is be a violation of the constitution and the court’s previous verdict.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)