Tag: terrorism trial

US, EU, and UK concerned over lack of due process in Nasheed trial

The United States, United Kingdom and the European Union have expressed concern with the lack of due process in the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed, who was convicted of terrorism charges and sentenced to 13 years in prison last night.

“Despite the calls from the international community for due process to be followed, we are concerned that the former President’s trial has not been conducted in a transparent and impartial manner or in accordance with due legal process,” said UK Foreign Office Minister Hugo Swire in a statement.

He added that the UK would be watching the appeal process closely.

“I recognise that this outcome will be deeply worrying for many in the Maldives. I therefore urge calm across the Maldives and encourage all political parties to act with moderation, restraint and within the bounds of the law,” Swire urged.

“We have been consulting closely on our concerns with Commonwealth partners, and we will continue to do so over the coming days.”

The US meanwhile expressed concern with “the apparent lack of appropriate criminal procedures during the trial”.

“We are particularly troubled by reports that the trial was conducted in a manner contrary to Maldivian law and Maldives’ international obligations to provide the minimum fair trial guarantees and other protections under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),” reads a statement by the US embassy in Colombo.

“This includes the denial of legal representation to former President Nasheed during the first hearing and concerns regarding the lack of impartiality and independence of the judges.

“We call on the government of Maldives to take steps to restore confidence in its commitment to democracy and the rule of law, including judicial independence, and to ensure fundamental rights are respected including the freedom of speech and of the press as well as the right to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest.  We urge the government to ensure former President Nasheed’s safety and well being in custody, and we hope all Maldivians will express their views peacefully.”

The EU said Nasheed’s conviction “raises very serious questions about due process of law and risks undermining people’s trust in the independence of the judiciary.”

The EU statement also noted that due legal process was obligatory for the Maldives under the ICCPR.

“Should the conviction be appealed, the appeal process must be fair and transparent with former President Nasheed being accorded all his rights, including adequate access to his lawyers,” the EU stated.

“The European Union calls on all sides in the Maldives to act responsibly and uphold constitutional freedoms.”

Indian External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin meanwhile tweeted saying India was “deeply concerned at developments in the Maldives, monitoring situation closely.”

“Travesty of justice”

Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon has previously condemned international statements of concern, stating: “Those who prefer to issue public statements about an on-going legal case, or on a domestic political situation, are advised to do a basic fact-check, before bandwagoning on to accusations made by a political party.”

Dunya asserted in a statement that President Abdulla Yameen’s administration “will not take instructions from a foreign government on any issue in governing the country.”

Moreover, President Yameen has declared that foreigners would not be allowed to meddle in domestic affairs and the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) has condemned the international community’s “hypocrisy and double standards” with regard to Nasheed’s trial.

Meanwhile, in a statement today, Amnesty International said Nasheed’s sentencing “after a deeply flawed and politically motivated trial is a travesty of justice.”

“Amnesty International condemns the conviction of Mohamed Nasheed to 13 years in jail by judges who were state witnesses during an earlier investigation of this case. This trial has been flawed from start to finish, and the conviction is unsound,” said Richard Bennett, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Director.

“Rather than responding to international calls to strengthen the impartiality of the judiciary the government of the Maldives has proceeded with this sham trial for political reasons”.

Amnesty noted that the opposition leader was denied legal representation at the first hearing of the trial and that at latter hearings his lawyers were not given sufficient time to prepare his defence.

Nasheed’s conviction last night received widespread coverage in international media and was greeted with outrage by several prominent figures who have called for his release.

Sir Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Group, called the outcome of the trial “beyond a joke” and declared he would not visit the Maldives until the opposition leader was released.

 

Related to this story

Former President Nasheed found guilty of terrorism, sentenced to 13 years in prison  

Nasheed trial “not free or fair,” says Maldivian Democracy Network

Foreigners cannot meddle in domestic affairs, declares President Yameen

PPM accuses international community of “double standards and hypocrisy” in Nasheed’s trial

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

Global change makers demand a fair trial for Nasheed

Indian Prime Minister Modi cancels Maldives trip

EU, UN join international chorus of concern over Nasheed’s arrest, terrorism trial

Foreign Minister Dunya slams Canada, Commonwealth statements on Nasheed prosecution

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former President Nasheed found guilty of terrorism, sentenced to 13 years in prison

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has been found guilty of terrorism and sentenced to 13 years in prison for the military’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Delivering the verdict at the final hearing of the trial tonight, Judge Abdulla Didi said the prosecution’s evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nasheed ordered the chief judge’s arrest or “forceful abduction.”

Nasheed was the “architect” of the “atrocity,” Judge Didi said.

The chief judge’s detention on Girifushi Island was unlawful and unconstitutional, he continued, noting that the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) defied orders from the Criminal Court, High Court and Supreme Court to release the judge.

Judge Didi also said the former president has a criminal record for theft, terrorism, false testimony and disobedience to orders.

While state prosecutors presented closing arguments tonights, Nasheed asked for 20 days to prepare his closing statement, stating he was unable to communicate with lawyers and examine evidence while incarcerated at Dhoonidhoo detention centre.

The former president asked to be transferred to Malé for better access to his lawyers.

He also objected to the hearing taking place on a Friday, noting that it was a public holiday where Muslims were enjoined to worship and spend time with family.

Tonight’s hearing was scheduled to begin at 8:30pm, but started around 9:15pm. After closing arguments, the judges adjourned proceedings and reconvened around 11:00pm.

Nasheed was smiling when the verdict was read out and shook hands with three of his family members while he was escorted out.

The opposition leader’s lawyers have said they intend to appeal the verdict at the High Court. If the lower court ruling is upheld by both the High Court and Supreme Court, Nasheed would not be able to contest the 2018 presidential election.

Home Minister Umar Naseer meanwhile tweeted saying he has “asked police to hold [President] Nasheed in Dhoonidhoo Detention Centre until a special unit is constructed in Maafushi Prison.”

Nasheed was charged with “enforced disappearance” under the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1990, which carries a jail term of between 10 to 15 years.

Prior to a hearing on March 9, all four of Nasheed’s lawyers quit in protest of the Criminal Court’s refusal to grant sufficient time to examine the prosecution’s evidence and mount a defence.

The presiding judges had denied the lawyers’ request for adequate time, stating the legal team has had the case documents for three years.

Judges also insisted in tonight’s verdict that Nasheed was offered both enough time to prepare his defence and access to lawyers, claiming he refused the opportunity to appoint new lawyers.

Nasheed was first charged in 2012 with arbitrary detention under article 81 of the penal code, which carries either banishment or a jail term of up to three years.

On February 15, Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin withdrew the charges filed at the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court. Nasheed was arrested on February 22 shortly after the PG filed terrorism charges at the Criminal Court.

At the previous hearing, Judges Didi, Abdul Bari Yousuf, and Shujau Usman dismissed the opposition leader’s repeated requests for legal representation. The judges also refused to hear defence witnesses, claiming they could not negate the prosecution’s evidence or witness testimony.

“I want a lawyer. This is not a court of law. This is injustice. This is the biggest circus this country has seen in its constitutional history,” Nasheed said.

Sit-in

Continuing its daily protests since Nasheed’s arrest, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) began a march at the ‘Usfasgandu’ area of Malé around 4:30pm today with thousands of supporters.

After walking down Majeedhee Magu, protesters split into two groups and staged a sit-down behind police barricades at Orchid Magu and Fareedhee Magu. Both roads lead to the Criminal Court building.

bacc78bf7f793f202624dbed3f21de0f63e68a718bd4d0db8798067f3bf13b4f

Police escorted Nasheed to court around 8:00pm for the last hearing of his trial. The opposition leader attempted to talk to journalists assembled outside the building, but was blocked by police.

Nasheed told the journalists to “stay strong.”

Around 8:40pm, according to a live blog on the police website, police said the Criminal Court complained to police of loud noise from loudspeakers on a pickup used by the protesters.

Police said protesters were repeatedly advised to turn down the volume, but refused to comply.

Specialist Operations (SO) officers confiscated the loudspeakers after “giving a last warning.”

Moreover, police said protesters threw objects at riot police and “some people who obstructed police duty were taken into police custody.”

A Minivan News journalist near the Salsa restaurant on Orchid Magu observed police using pepper spray indiscriminately and arresting at least six protesters.

When SO officers pushed back protesters with their shields and attempted to take over the pickups, protesters threw bottles at the riot police.

Violent clashes erupted between SO officers and protesters.

One protester was seen bleeding from the head after the clashes. However, SO officers took the pickups away, pushed back protesters and withdrew behind barricades.

Meanwhile, a group of about five young men hurled crude oil at a protest pickup at Fareedhee Magu and vandalised equipment. Police have also confirmed the incident.

The five men were reportedly arrested at the scene.

Police also said a protester was taken to hospital after being pepper sprayed and released after treatment. Police did not specify the nature of the injury.

According to an update on the police blog at 11:40pm, two police officers were attacked near Salsa restaurant and their vehicle was damaged during the assault. A cameramen was also injured and protesters threw bottles at journalists, police said.

The sit-in protest was continuing at the time of publication.

Related to this story

Nasheed trial “not free or fair,” says Maldivian Democracy Network

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

Nasheed’s lawyers quit

Nasheed’s lawyers stage no-show citing insufficient time for preparation

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Chief of Defense Forces testifies in Nasheed, Tholhath terrorism trials

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed trial “not free or fair,” says Maldivian Democracy Network

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s ongoing trial on terrorism charges is “not free or fair,” contends NGO Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN), highlighting several irregularities in the hearings at the Criminal Court.

“It is with great desperation that the Maldivian Democracy Network calls upon the higher courts of the Maldives, the Judicial Service Commission, the Human Rights Commission of Maldives, the parliament and the president of the Maldives to acknowledge and restore justice with regard to the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed,” MDN said in a statement on March 10.

“Furthermore we also call upon the international community, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul and United Nations Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Assembly to hold the Maldivian government to account for its continued breach of the constitution, laws and regulations.”

Nasheed is accused of ordering the military to detain Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012. Following international concern and opposition demands to release “political prisoners,” President Abdulla Yameen has said he could not interfere in criminal proceedings as the judiciary was an independent branch of the state under the new constitution.

Irregularities

Listing 11 issues of concern with the trial, the democracy and human rights NGO noted that presiding judges denied Nasheed legal counsel despite repeated requests during the hearing on March 9.

All four of Nasheed’s lawyers had quit in protest of the Criminal Court’s refusal to grant sufficient time to examine the prosecution’s evidence and prepare a defence against new terror charges pressed on February 22.

On February 15, Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin withdrew charges raised against the opposition leader under article 81 of the penal code for illegally detaining a government employee who has not been convicted of a crime. The offence carries a jail term of up to three years.

However, the new charges of “enforced disappearance” filed under anti-terrorism laws carry a jail term or banishment of between 10 to 15 years.

MDN noted that Nasheed’s legal team was given three days for the initial preparation and one day for witness evaluation.

“All attempts by Nasheed’s legal counsel to appeal to the Criminal Court (one appeal) and the High Court (four appeals) have been rejected,” MDN stated.

“Nasheed’s legal counsel was not provided timely meetings with Nasheed in preparation for previous hearings.”

MDN also observed that Judges Abdulla Didi, Abdul Bari Yousuf and Shujau Usman have “engaged in several acts where their integrity has been compromised, such as elaborating and answering for the prosecution and state witnesses during cross examination and open demonstration of animosity towards Nasheed and his legal counsel during hearings.”

State prosecutors have also admitted in court to engaging with witnesses, which MDN argued could be “perceived as witness coaching.”

When Nasheed’s lawyers objected, MDN noted that the presiding judge asked whether it was a problem.

Moreover, the judges blocked and ignored Nasheed lawyers’ attempts to “negate state witnesses” under High Court precedents, MDN said.

The judges also refused to admit or hear defence witnesses, claiming they could not negate the prosecution’s evidence or witness testimony.

Referring to video footage submitted as evidence by the prosecution, MDN noted that two judges presiding over the case were at the scene when Judge Abdulla was taken into military custody.

However, the judges have denied Nasheed’s lawyers’ requests to either recuse themselves from the case or be named defence witnesses.

“The Criminal Court has refused to acknowledge international and local trial observers,” the MDN statement continued.

“The Criminal Court allows six members of the public and 10 media persons to enter the viewing gallery while the same courtroom previously allowed 40 seats for viewing.”

MDN also referred to an incident on Sunday night where Raajje TV journalists were forced to delete footage of PG Muhsin allegedly meeting Judge Bari in a café. The Criminal Court subsequently barred all journalists from the station from observing trials.

MDN stressed that the Maldives was a signatory to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which obliges the state to afford all citizens a fair trial.

“We call upon the state to make all necessary lawful interventions into these unconstitutional acts and restore law and order in the country,” MDN said.

Related to this story

“This is not a court of law. This is injustice,” Nasheed tells the Criminal Court

Nasheed’s lawyers quit

Nasheed’s lawyers stage no-show citing insufficient time for preparation

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Chief of Defense Forces testifies in Nasheed, Tholhath terrorism trials

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Foreigners cannot meddle in domestic affairs, declares President Yameen

Foreigners will not be allowed to meddle in domestic affairs of the Maldives, President Abdulla Yameen has declared, slamming opposition politicians for seeking foreign interference.

Addressing youth supporters Sunday night at a private function in Citron Restaurant – reportedly organised by First Lady Fathmath Ibrahim – President Yameen said foreigners could not come to the country to “settle our affairs” as the Maldives was a member of the UN family with the same rights and independence as any other nation.

“We wouldn’t want foreigners from different countries coming here to criticise what we do and telling us what to do. So that is not something we will give any room for,” Yameen is heard saying in a recording obtained by Minivan News.

“So in the work we’re doing in the Maldives we will try to do things in accordance with our laws and Islamic principles. And if the consequence of that is people from distant nations finding it unacceptable, that is their problem. That is their problem. But we are not going to give up an inch of our country’s sovereignty to foreign parties.”

Photo from social media

Yameen’s remarks come amidst a political crisis and anti-government demonstrations sparked by the arrest and prosecution of both former President Mohamed Nasheed and former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim on terrorism charges.

Last month, Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon hit back at statements issued by the UN, EU, India, Canada, and the Commonwealth expressing concern with the arrest and trial of the opposition leader.

“The Government of President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom will not take instructions from a foreign government on any issue in governing the country,” she said in a statement.

Yameen meanwhile said protesting on the streets was not a right reserved to the opposition and warned them not to consider the government’s “compassion and patience” as weakness.

“Do not believe at all that it is our weakness when we don’t act or take up problems seriously. It is because we love the Maldivian people. We were patient to prioritise [national] interest, peace and security here. But when it reaches the point where our patience is challenged, then we will say that we will also welcome taking things down the determined path,” he said.

While his administration welcomes protests and free expression within legal bounds, Yameen said opposition politicians inviting foreign governments to take action against the Maldives was unacceptable.

He argued that causing harm to society and imperilling national security could not be justified in the “context of individual liberty.”

Yameen asked youth to consider if it was acceptable to call for tourism boycotts and invite other countries to “meddle in the Maldives’ sovereignty and independence.”

People who cause damage to the country should be given just punishment, Yameen insisted.

Referring to the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party-Jumhooree Party (MDP-JP) alliance’s demands to release “political prisoners,” Yameen said the new constitution separated the three powers of state and the president could not interfere in judicial proceedings.

He also accused the opposition of not attempting to save youth incarcerated for arson and other offences during anti-government protests after allegedly encouraging the crimes.

“But when they feel something is about to happen to a politician over a crime he committed, it is as if the Maldivian sky is falling on our heads,” he said.

“So this is the double standard among us.”

While ordinary Maldivians faced harsh sentences on a daily basis, Yameen said the opposition politicians and lawyers briefing foreign diplomats about the “inadequate system” were unconcerned.

“But when just one case of a politician is filed at court, the entire justice system of the Maldives becomes a corrupt system,” he said.

The Maldives’ judiciary deserves the respect of foreign nations, he said.

He went on to say that former allies the JP and Adhaalath Party who protested against Nashed’s administration now calling for his release was “a riddle.”

All citizens were equal before the law, he continued, and all citizens have a constitutional right to defend themselves in a court of law.

Opposition protests against Nasheed’s administration in 2012 were prompted by the government “destroying the justice system” and arresting Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed, Yameen said.

The public “came out in defence of the constitution” when Nasheed defied the Supreme Court’s orders to release the chief judge, he said, adding that the protests were about “a substantial and serious problem” whilst the current protests were “without any substance or basis.”

On the opposition alliance’s demands to release Nasheed, Yameen insisted that the government has not “arrested any politicians” and argued that enforcing the law without bias was in the best interest of the nation.

“Those facing punishment for their crimes happening to be politicians does not mean [we are] taking action against politicians,” he said.

If the president interfered and sought to settle such cases out of court, Yameen asked both the youth and opposition parties to consider if the president should overrule the judiciary once a death penalty verdict has been passed.

“Should President Yameen enforce the judgment differently for different people based on their colour, their faces, and their social standing?” he asked.

“If President Yameen acts differently in the present cases, why wouldn’t he act so in [death penalty cases]?”

Related to this story:

EU, UN join international chorus of concern over Nasheed’s arrest, terrorism trial

Foreign Minister Dunya slams Canada, Commonwealth statements on Nasheed prosecution

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Didi flown overseas for medical treatment

Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ibrahim Mohamed Didi is currently in India for medical treatment, reports local media.

The retired brigadier general was hospitalised at the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH) on March 1 and kept at the intensive care unit (ICU) for a heart test every six hours.

A friend of the mid-Hithadhoo MP told newspaper Haveeru is being treated at a specialist hospital for heart diseases in Kerala, adding that Didi’s blood pressure was also high.

Didi’s condition was now improving, he told the local daily.

The opposition MP is currently on trial on terrorism charges – along with former President Mohamed Nasheed and senior officers of the military – over the military’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Didi was Malé Area Commander at the time of the controversial arrest. Following his hospitalisation, the Criminal Court has not scheduled any further hearings in Didi’s trial.

After the first hearing, Didi asked whether the terrorism trial was his reward for risking his life in defence of the nation during the November 3, 1988 failed coup attempt by a group of Maldivians and Tamil mercenaries.

Didi – a corporal and former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s bodyguard at the time – played a pivotal role on November 3 by carrying the keys of the armoury from Machangoalhi Kinbigasdhoshuge to the besieged military headquarters before soldiers ran out of ammunition.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State prosecutors influencing witnesses, claim Nasheed’s lawyers

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s lawyers objected last night to the state’s alleged influencing of witnesses in a terrorism trial over the military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Prosecutor Abdulla Rabiu admitted state prosecutors had met with witnesses, and shared statements they had provided to two separate 2012 investigations both by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) and the police in order to “refresh memories. ”

Rabiu stressed the meetings were routine, but Nasheed’s lawyer Hisaan Hussein said refreshing a witness’s memory amounted to influencing witnesses.

Two of three police officers who testified in Nasheed’s trial so far and Judge Abdulla’s sister-in-law Sobira said they had met with state prosecutors and reread their statements before testifying.

If convicted, the opposition leader faces a jail term or banishment between ten and 15 years.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked 22 consecutive nights of violent anti-government demonstrations that culminated in a police and military mutiny on the morning of February 7, 2012, forcing Nasheed to resign in what he subsequently called a “coup d’etat.”

Abducted

Testifying via telephone last night, Judge Abdulla’s wife, Aminath Shareef, and sister-in-law, Sobira, said Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) officers had forcibly taken the judge from his home on January 16.

Despite Judge Abdulla’s mother-in-law’s repeated requests for a court warrant, masked officers pushed the door open and entered the dining room where Judge Abdulla was having dinner.

They took him by the hand, and ordered him to accompany them outside. They refused Judge Abdulla’s request to be allowed inside his room to change clothes, forcing him to change his trousers in the hallway. MNDF officers surrounded him at the time.

Aminath said she refused to let go of her husband’s hand, but an MNDF officer forced them apart.

Sobira said officers did not answer the family’s questions on where Judge Abdulla was being taken.

Despite having said she remembered former Criminal Court Judge and current Prosecutor General Muhthaz Mushin being present during the arrest at their home in her testimony to the HRCM, Sobira last night said she did not remember if he had been present at all.  She said she did not know who Muhsin was at the time.

Nasheed’s lawyers objected to witnesses testifying by telephone, but Judge Abdulla Didi said the procedure was routine.

Hatred

Chief Superintendent of Police Abdul Mannan Yoosuf also testified last night, claiming Nasheed said he would never release Judge Abdulla and would not let the judge within 100 meters of a courtroom during a meeting with the police after the judge’s arrest.

Nasheed objected to Mannan testifying, saying the officer harboured deep animosity towards him.

Judges blocked defence lawyer’s attempts at questioning Mannan on his whereabouts during February 7, when he had received his promotion and whether he had called for Nasheed’s resignation.

Judge Didi said Nasheed should have raised objections before a witness was called to the stand, but lawyers countered stating they had not had adequate time to prepare the former president’s defence.

Lawyers argued Nasheed had first been charged with arbitrary detention, but was now facing new terror charges. They once again requested 30 extra days to prepare for the new charges.

The Criminal Court refused saying the same case documents were used for the new charges and said Nasheed’s lawyers had been provided the documents in 2012.

Judge Didi said witness statements only consisted of one or two pages, suggesting lawyers did not require much preparation before hearings.

Nasheed said he preferred an immediate sentence over a trial without adequate time for defense. His next hearing has been scheduled for 4pm today. The state is to present documentary evidence against the former president.

Judge Didi assured Nasheed he would be allowed to view or hear documentary evidence along with his lawyers before the hearing.

Nasheed had previously contested the credibility of police and military officers as state witnesses, and contended the role of the police and military officers in his February 2012 ouster and Judge Abdulla’s arrest raised questions over their trustworthiness.

On March 2, the presiding bench waved away the concerns of Nasheed’s lawyers, who objected that two of the presiding judges, and the Prosecutor General, had provided witness testimony during the HRCM investigation.

The judges also warned President Nasheed’s legal team not to speak to journalists in a “manner that might defame the judiciary.”

Related to this story

Chief of Defense Forces testifies in Nasheed, Tholhath terrorism trials

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Foreign Minister Dunya slams Canada, Commonwealth statements on Nasheed prosecution

Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon has slammed statements issued by the Commonwealth and Canada expressing concern over the denial of legal representation to former President Mohamed Nasheed at the first hearing of his terrorism trial yesterday.

At a press conference today, Dunya dismissed Canadian Foreign Minister Rob Nicholson’s statement as “blatantly untrue.”

Nicholson had called Nasheed’s detention and denial of constitutional rights “abhorrent.”

“[Nicholson] had described Nasheed’s arrest as unlawful or illegal. Nasheed was arrested in relation to the kidnapping or unlawful detention of the Chief Judge of Criminal Court in 2012. That act was illegal by all international laws and principles” said Dunya.

Nasheed appeared in court yesterday with his arm in a makeshift sling after police officers manhandled the former president outside the court building when he attempted to speak with journalists.

The Commonwealth meanwhile stated that Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma was “concerned to note reports that former President Nasheed was denied the right to legal representation”.

Responding to the statements, Dunya said: “To criticise us in public statements with lies or biased with having only heard the oppositions point of view is not acceptable. The government will not accept these statements and will not pay any attention to them.”

She added that the Maldives has long been an independent and sovereign country, “and we do not want to be under any foreign influences or under a colonial power. No foreign power can tell Maldives what to do under President [Abdulla] Yameen.”

“Wronged”

Dunya said the Maldives does not have a significant relationship with Canada.

“I don’t think they know what actually is happening in here,” she suggested.

“Canada is a very influential country in the Commonwealth. Big countries do influence [the Commonwealth] and especially if they are funding and assisting the Commonwealth, then the organisation will do what they want.”

Dunya also said the Maldives would not accept the Commonwealth’s offer of expert legal assistance.

“[The Commonwealth] wants to provide us with their expertise but we simply do not want it. We have other ways, countries ready to help and even our own way of consolidating democracy here,” she said.

Questioning the value of the Maldives remaining a member state of the Commonwealth, Dunya said the organisation had “wronged” the Maldives by placing the country on a watch-list in the wake of the controversial transfer of power in February 2012.

While the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) had suspended the Maldives and placed the country on its formal agenda, Dunya noted that a Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) later concluded that the transfer of power was constitutional.

“So we want to say to the Commonwealth, you have wronged us in the past and you are still mistreating us,” she said.

“We don’t get much aid or development from being a Commonwealth country. In 2012, Maldivians questioned the importance of us remaining in the Commonwealth. I am sure the question will arise again.”

She added that President Yameen would make a decision on whether to remain in the Commonwealth.

“Strategic misrepresentation of basic facts”

Dunya went on to say that she did not believe Maldivians could be adversely affected as a result of the government’s stand.

“Looking at the history, even if we are to face any problems [from the international community] we have to adhere to our principles, our methods and especially our independence and sovereignty,” she said.

Dunya also issued a statement today casting doubt on the Commonwealth’s assertion that it was “closely monitoring” the situation in the Maldives, noting that the Commonwealth Secretariat had not contacted the ministry over the past few days.

“On the contrary, I initiated a phone call to the Secretary General last night in which we exchanged views about issues of mutual concern in the Commonwealth and in the Maldives. I therefore regret the strategic misrepresentation of basic facts in the Secretary General’s statement,” reads Dunya’s statement.

It added that Nasheed was arrested with a court warrant and presented before a judge within 24 hours in accordance with “normal procedure,” after which the judge granted the former president the opportunity to appoint a lawyer.

However, Nasheed was brought to court more than 24 hours after the arrest for the first hearing of a trial on terrorism charges, rather than a remand hearing.

The former president appeared at the hearing without legal representation.

Citing new regulations, the Criminal Court informed Nasheed’s legal team on Monday morning (February 23) that the lawyers had to register at the court two days in advance despite being unaware of the trial until the former president’s arrest less than 24 hours ago.

Dunya, however, insisted that that police “followed the standard procedure and due process.”

“I wish to recall that the Commonwealth Secretariat had misread the situation in the Maldives once before, in 2012 and presented it to the CMAG, which took punitive measures against the country,” Dunya noted in her statement

“The Maldives, however, emerged from the situation vindicated by the CoNI Report. The government is hopeful that the Commonwealth will not repeat the same mistakes again.”

Related to this story

Commonwealth, Canada express concern over denial of legal representation for former President Nasheed

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Police arrest former President Mohamed Nasheed ahead of terrorism trial

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Commonwealth, Canada express concern over denial of legal representation for former President Nasheed

The Commonwealth and Canada have expressed concern over the denial of legal representation to former President Mohamed Nasheed at his trial on terrorism charges yesterday.

The Commonwealth spokesperson noted in a statement yesterday that the intergovernmental organisation was closely monitoring developments in the wake of the opposition leader’s arrest on Sunday (February 22).

“The Secretary-General is concerned to note reports that former President Nasheed was denied the right to legal representation at the court hearing that took place on 23 February. The Commonwealth has also noted the arrest of former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim on 10 February,” reads the statement.

“The Secretary-General raised his concerns today with the Foreign Minister of Maldives, Hon Dunya Maumoon, and has stressed the importance of ensuring that the rule of law is respected, with adherence to due process, and in accordance with the Commonwealth Charter.”

The statement added that Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma also “reiterated his offer to provide Commonwealth expert assistance in relation to upholding the separation of powers in Maldives, consistent with the Commonwealth’s Latimer House principles on the separation of powers between the three branches of government.”

Nasheed appeared in court for the first hearing of the trial yesterday with his arm in a makeshift sling after police officers manhandled the former president outside the court building when he attempted to speak with journalists.

Canadian Foreign Minister Rob Nicholson meanwhile put out a statement yesterday expressing “grave concern” at Nasheed’s arrest.

“Developments in Maldives and the brutal and unjustified treatment of the former president call into question Maldives’ commitment to due process and democratic principles,” reads the statement.

“Mr. Nasheed’s unlawful detainment and the denial of his constitutional rights, including to legal counsel and appeal, under the politically charged allegation of ‘terrorism’ are abhorrent.

“We expect that Mr. Nasheed will receive medical care without delay. Canada calls on the Government of Maldives to reaffirm its commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and it urges that differences be resolved within the constitutional framework of Maldives. As tensions rise in the country, Canada urges calm and restraint on all sides.”

Official spokesperson at the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, Syed Akbaruddin, also expressed concern yesterday over the recent developments, “including the arrest and manhandling of former President Nasheed,” and appealed for peaceful resolution of the political crisis.

Meanwhile, the US State Department revealed yesterday that Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Nisha Biswal had spoken to Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon to express concern over Nasheed’s arrest and subsequent developments.

“She urged the government to take steps to restore confidence in their commitment to democracy, judicial independence, and rule of law, including respect for the rights of peaceful protest and respect for due process,” State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said at a regular news briefing.

Right to legal counsel

The Criminal Court yesterday refused to register any of the former president’s five lawyers to advocate on his behalf at the terrorism trial.

Citing new regulations, the Criminal Court informed the legal team on Monday morning that the lawyers had to register at the court two days in advance despite being unaware of the trial until the former president’s arrest less than 24 hours ago.

“How can we submit forms two days ahead for a trial we did not know would take place two days before? It is clear to any sane person this is absolute nonsense,” Nasheed’s lawyer, Hisaan Hussain, told the press.

The legal team was also unable to appeal the Criminal Court’s arrest warrant – which they contended was “arbitrary” and riddled with irregularities – after the court informed the lawyers that the new appeal form was as yet unavailable.

Concluding the first hearing of the terrorism trial yesterday, Judge Abdulla Didi granted Nasheed three days to appoint a lawyer and prepare his defence on charges of ordering the military to detain Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

The judge also ordered police to hold Nasheed in pre-trial detention until the conclusion of the trial.

Related to this story

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Police arrest former President Mohamed Nasheed ahead of terrorism trial

MDP, JP rally supporters ahead of mass February 27 march

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)