Tag: terrorism

Canada appalled by guilty verdict for Nasheed

Canada is appalled by the Maldives’ prosecution of former President Mohamed Nasheed on terrorism charges, Parliamentary Secretary Deepak Obhrai has said in a statement on Wednesday.

“This verdict goes against the core principles of the Commonwealth, and Canada will continue to call on Maldives to reaffirm its commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law,” the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for International Human Rights said.

Nasheed was convicted of terrorism and sentenced to 13 years in jail over the military’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in 2012.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and UN Special Rapporteur for Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul last week condemned the apparent lack of due process in Nasheed’s trial.

The rushed trial was marred with several irregularities, including the Criminal Court’s refusal to call defence witnesses, grant Nasheed adequate time to prepare defence and appoint new legal representation when his lawyers resigned half-way through the trial.

“The manner in which the trial was conducted infringes basic and fundamental concepts of due process. The result brings Maldives’ justice system into disrepute and is symptomatic of backsliding in Maldives’ commitment to domestic and international human rights obligations and democratic principles, which is causing growing tensions in the country,” Obhrai said.

President Abdulla Yameen on March 15 called on all parties to respect the Criminal Court’s verdict against Nasheed.

“The government calls on its international partners to engage constructively, based on mutual respect and dialogue in consolidating and strengthening democratic values and institutions in the country,” read the brief statement.

On February 24, Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon blasted a February 23 Canadian statement expressing concern over Nasheed’s arrest ahead of the surprise trial.

At the time, Canadian Foreign Minister Rob Nicholson said “the brutal and unjustified treatment of the former president call into question Maldives’ commitment to due process and democratic principles.

Dunya dismissed Nicholson’s statement as “blatantly untrue,” adding: “I don’t think they know what actually is happening here.”

 

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed’s lawyers decry Criminal Court failure to provide court proceedings as appeal deadline approaches

With additional reporting by Shafaa Hameed

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s lawyers today decried the Criminal Court’s continued failure to provide court proceedings into the opposition leader’s terrorism trial, with only two days remaining before the appeal period expires.

The Criminal Court only today released a judgment summary, which lawyers say is not enough to build an appeal.

Without the full transcripts of court proceedings, lawyers would not be able to determine if the three judge panel had considered fully witness testimony and defence arguments in their verdict, a statement issued today said.

Expressing grave concern, Nasheed’s legal team said the Criminal Court’s failure to provide court proceedings “is an obstruction of President Nasheed’s right to appeal.”

The opposition leader was convicted of terrorism and sentenced to 13 years in jail on March 13. According to new rules enacted prior to Nasheed’s trial, lawyers have 10 days to file their appeal.

A signed copy of the judgment summary was provided just before 3:00pm today, although the Supreme Court issued rules require judges to provide the summary at the end of the trial.

The appeal deadline is believed to expire on Sunday, March 22.

Asked if the ten-day appeal period included weekends, a Criminal Court spokesperson said he would have to check the new rules.

“These are untested rules. So we will file the appeal by Sunday, March 22,” Ahmed said.

The conviction of the opposition leader on terrorism charges relates to the military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has previously accused the Criminal Court of “deliberately refusing to release court proceedings in order to frustrate attempts at launching an appeal.”

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein on Wednesday called on the Maldives to enable international jurists to observe an appeal after “a hasty and apparently unfair trial.”

Expressing strong concern, Zeid noted that the Criminal Court refused to provide Nasheed adequate time to prepare a defence, and said the court’s decision not to call defence witnesses was “contrary to international fair trial standards.”

He urged the former president be given adequate time to prepare and present his defence during the appeal process.

“The Nasheed case places the Maldives judicial processes in a sharp spotlight. The flagrant irregularities in this case can still be rectified in the appeal process, and I urge the authorities to restore domestic and international confidence in the legal system by enabling international jurists to observe the appeal process,” he said.

The surprise trial began one day after Nasheed was arrested on February 22, and was completed after 11 hearings in 19 days.

“It is hard to see how such hasty proceedings, which are far from the norm in the Maldives, can be compatible with the authorities’ obligations under international law to conduct a fair trial,” the UN human rights chief said.

President Abdulla Yameen meanwhile called on all parties to respect the Criminal Court’s verdict.

In a statement released by the President’s Office on Sunday (March 15), President Yameen noted that the opposition leader has “a constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal” to challenge his conviction on terrorism charges at the High Court.

Correction: This article previously stated the Criminal Court had issued court proceedings. This is incorrect. The court had only provided a judgment summary.  

Related to this story:

UN human rights chief expresses strong concern over “hasty and apparently unfair” Nasheed trial

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

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

Respect Criminal Court verdict, says President Yameen

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

Judge Abdulla suspected of involvement in “contract killing,” says Nasheed

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ex Chief of Defence Forces ‘chaired military meeting’ ahead of Judge Abdulla’s arrest

Former Chief of Defence Forces Moosa Ali Jaleel chaired a military consultative council meeting requesting the military be brought to alert ahead of Judge Abdulla Mohamed’s arrest on January 16, 2012, a witness has said.

Jaleel, who was recently appointed as President Abdulla Yameen’s Defence Minister is charged with terrorism over the Criminal Court Chief Judge’s 22-day military detention, but had previously denied any involvement in the arrest, repeatedly stating he neither received nor gave any orders to arrest the judge.

However, then- Vice Chief of Defence Forces Farhath Shaheer last night told the Criminal Court that Jaleel had asked the council if the military alert status needed to be revised ahead of the judge’s arrest. Jaleel also told the council he was not seeking advice on the arrest, Farhath said.

Farhath said he does not remember if the minutes of the emergency meeting were recorded.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed was found guilty of terrorism over Judge Abdulla’s arrest on March 13, and sentenced to 13 years in jail. The trial has drawn international and domestic concern over apparent lack of due process.

Jaleel on March 7 led a ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) motorcycle rally calling for a swift sentence in Nasheed’s trial.

Jaleel previously told the Criminal Court the former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu and then-Malé Area Commander Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi – currently opposition Maldivian Democratic Party MP for mid-Hithadhoo constituency – were in charge of the operation to arrest Judge Abdulla.

The pair are also on trial on terrorism charges along with former Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Ziyad.

Jaleel had told parliament’s Government Oversight Committee in January 2013 that former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu usurped the army chief’s powers through a strategic defence directive (SDD), which required area commanders to answer directly to the defence minister.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Respect Criminal Court verdict, says President Yameen

President Abdulla Yameen has called on all parties to respect the Criminal Court’s verdict against former President Mohamed Nasheed.

In a statement released by the President’s Office last night, President Yameen noted that the opposition leader has “a constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal” to challenge his conviction on terrorism charges at the High Court.

“The government calls on its international partners to engage constructively, based on mutual respect and dialogue in consolidating and strengthening democratic values and institutions in the country,” reads the brief statement.

“The government remains steadfast in ensuring the separation of powers as stipulated under the Maldivian constitution and upholding the rule of law in the country.”

In the wake of the Criminal Court sentencing the opposition leader to 13 years in jail on Friday night (March 13), the United States, United Kingdom and the European Union expressed concern with the lack of due process, while Amnesty International said Nasheed’s conviction “after a deeply flawed and politically motivated trial is a travesty of justice.”

Domestically, the Human Rights Commission of Maldives said the former president was denied fundamental rights that guarantee a fair trial in line with the Maldives’ obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Moreover, human rights NGO Maldivian Democracy Network urged the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges to intervene in order to prevent a “slide back to autocracy,” whilst Transparency Maldives expressed “grave concern” and stressed that Nasheed was denied legal representation, the right to appeal, and sufficient time to mount a defence.

However, President’s Office Spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali told Minivan News yesterday that he believed the Criminal Court “would have afforded due process in the conduct of Nasheed’s trial.”

“If you study this case, from the beginning to the end, it is clear the charges are not politically motivated,” Muaz insisted.

President Yameen as head of state could not “interfere in judicial proceedings and is not to blame for court proceedings,” he said.

Intervention

Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma released a statement yesterday noting that the intergovernmental organisation would continue to closely follow the judicial process after the verdict.

The Commonwealth urged restraint and advised peaceful resolution of “differences of view” through dialogue.

“The Foreign Minister of Maldives, Hon Dunya Maumoon, has made recent public comments welcoming constructive and close dialogue with international organisations,” the statement read.

The Commonwealth assured its commitment to working with the Maldives to address issues of concern.

“All societies should have the space and opportunity for dialogue in order to ensure that universally shared values are advanced, and to create a stable and harmonious future,” the statement continued.

“All societies should also have national institutions that enjoy the confidence, trust and respect of the people they serve. The Commonwealth is committed to offering practical support in a collaborative partnership to achieve these goals in an enduring way.”

The Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) has meanwhile called on the UN to hold an emergency session on the situation in the Maldives.

The ACHR “urged the members of the UN Security Council to take necessary measures to seize assets and freeze accounts of President of Maldives Mr Abdulla Yameen, Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon, Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin and the three judges overseeing Nasheed’s trial i.e. Abdulla Didi, Abdul Bari Yoousuf and Sujau Usman and other key officials of the regime, impose travel restrictions and trade embargo, and withhold financial assistance and technical cooperation to the Maldives until the release of Nasheed.”

“The trial is a travesty of justice – Judge [Abdulla Mohamed] who claims himself to have been illegally detained for which former President Nasheed was charged under terrorism charges still heads the Criminal Court trying Nasheed and effectively allowed his deputy, Judge Abdulla Didi, to convict Nasheed in a kangaroo trial. If the United Nations and international community fail to intervene now, democracy may never return to the Maldives,” said ACHR Director Suhas Chakma.

The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia) also condemned the verdict and noted that Nasheed was “never investigated for the fresh charges of terrorism before trial.”

“The trial of Nasheed was riddled with numerous violations of basic human rights and fair trial standards, and his conviction must be condemned. This is a clear case of political persecution and therefore the verdict is not surprising, considering the manner in which the court has conducted the trial,” said Forum-Asia Executive Director Evelyn Balais-Serrano.

Related to this story

Democracy Network alerts UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges on Nasheed’s sham trial

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

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

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

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

Former President Nasheed appears in court with arm in makeshift sling

 

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed wishes mercy for his jailers: “In this time of profound injustice, I harbour no hatred.”

Former President Mohamed Nasheed, sentenced to 13 years in jail in a trial many observers have called a travesty of justice, has issued a statement wishing mercy on his jailers.

“In this time of profound injustice, I harbour no hatred. And to those who seek to destroy me, I say: I wish upon you good grace and blessings,” the opposition leader said last night.

Nasheed was convicted of ordering the January 2012 military detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

The United States, United Kingdom and the European Union have expressed concern with the lack of due process, while Amnesty International said Nasheed’s sentencing “after a deeply flawed and politically motivated trial is a travesty of justice.”

The Criminal Court denied Nasheed bail on February 23 at a first hearing without legal representation. The three-judge panel at subsequent hearings dismissed Nasheed’s repeated requests for additional time to prepare a defence and refused to call the defence’s witnesses claiming they do not appear to negate the prosecution’s evidence.

The three-judge panel also included two judges who had acted as witnesses in an earlier investigation into Judge Abdulla’s arrest.

In his statement, Nasheed called for mass protests against President Abdulla Yameen’s regime and appealed to supporters to remain courageous and strong.

“The Maldivian judiciary is full of corruption and disgrace. Judges are routinely accepting the vile money of bribery. These judges have no fear of the day of judgment, and no shame in this world. The consequence of their actions is injustice to the public and the thwarting of this country’s development,” the former president said.

Nasheed was the Maldives’ first democratically elected president.

“Why am I calling for such a sacrifice? Know this for sure: it is not for my own well being . I am not staying in jail, a captive, because I have no way out. I could easily secure my freedom and happiness by agreeing to stop the work I am doing, and falling at President Yameen’s feet. I could choose to live in riches, in comfort, and in joy. But if I choose that path, Maldivians will reach a tragic end. Maldivians will be deprived of what they rightfully deserve: freedom, dignity and democracy. They will never be allowed to stand tall. Forever, they will be forced to cower before this dictatorial regime.

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.”

Delivering the guilty verdict, Judge Abdulla Didi said the prosecution’s evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nasheed as commander-in-chief ordered the arrest or “forceful abduction” of Judge Abdulla.

When provided with the opportunity to present concluding statements at an initial hearing at 9:15pm, Nasheed once again asked for legal counsel and additional time.

“My incarceration in Dhoonidhoo Jail prevents me from communicating with my lawyers. They are unable to provide me with the legal counsel I require. They were not provided with the prosecution’s evidence for review, adequate means for communication, or internet services. There were no arrangements for us to sit together to prepare legal documents,” he told the court.

“My lawyers quit, because they were unable to afford me the legal counsel necessary for a free and fair trial. They quit stating that the three of you judges are unjust in how you conduct this trial. In this situation, I am unable to prepare concluding statements. I can only prepare such a statement only when I am freed from this situation, if I am transferred to Malé and given sufficient time for preparation.”

However, reading out the guilty verdict at 11:15pm, presiding Judge Abdulla Didi insisted Nasheed had been afforded adequate to prepare defence, arguing case documents had been provided three years ago when the former president was initially charged.

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.

Judge Didi also said Nasheed had refused to make use of a phone call to appoint new lawyers when all four of his lawyers quit.

President’s Office Spokesperson Ibrahim Muaz Ali today said the government will ensure former President Mohamed Nasheed’s right to appeal his conviction on terrorism charges if he believes the Criminal Court did not follow due process.

Related to this story

Government will ensure Nasheed’s right to appeal conviction, says spokesperson

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed prosecution highlights “selective approach to justice,” says Amnesty International

The arrest and prosecution of former President Mohamed Nasheed on charges of terrorism highlights “a selective approach to justice in the Maldives,” Amnesty International has said.

The international human rights organisation noted in a press statement yesterday (March 3) that the court did not order an investigation of Nasheed’s alleged mistreatment by police on February 23.

“The court also denied him the right to be represented by his lawyer at the hearing, and rejected his request to receive medical treatment for injuries caused after police manhandled him outside the court premises,” reads the statement.

Following his arrest on February 22 ahead of a surprise terrorism trial, Nasheed appeared in court the next day using his tie as a makeshift sling after police manhandled and dragged the opposition leader into the court building.

Citing new regulations, the Criminal Court meanwhile informed the legal team on the day of the first hearing 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 the previous day.

However, the government has maintained that due process was followed in Nasheed’s arrest and dismissed the incident outside the court building as “a stunt” pulled by the opposition leader in order to garner sympathy and support from the international community.

The government also insists that it has no role in the criminal proceedings as charges were raised by an independent Prosecutor General and tried through an independent judiciary.

Amnesty International meanwhile noted that Prosecutor General Muthaz Muhsin pressed charges against Nasheed under anti-terrorism laws after withdrawing previous charges filed under Article 81 of the penal code for illegally detaining a government employee who had not been convicted of a crime.

While the latter offence carries a jail term of up to three years, the charges of terrorism under “enforced disappearance” carries a jail sentence of between 10 to 15 years.

“A conviction would stop Mohamed Nasheed, a popular opposition leader, from contesting future presidential elections, with the next one due in 2018,” Amnesty observed.

Nasheed’s arrest warrant stated that he might not attend trial or go into hiding, Amnesty noted, and the Criminal Court at the first hearing ordered police to hold the former president in custody until the conclusion of the trial.

“Claims of his ill-treatment were substantiated by video footage, viewed by Amnesty International, which appear to show him being manhandled,” the statement continued.

“This was reminiscent of the events of February 2012 when Nasheed and his supporters were attacked by security forces. Eyewitnesses say he was dragged into the court in a degrading manner. He told the judge that he was in need of medical attention, but the judge refused his request.”

Echoing calls by the Commonwealth, UN, EU, and the UK, Amnesty urged the government to “ensure the due process of law, and that any judicial processes against Mohamed Nasheed conform to international fair trial standards.”

Amnesty also called for an independent and impartial investigation into Nasheed’s mistreatment in police custody as well as the judge’s refusal to allow the former president to seek medical treatment.

“Dozens of Nasheed’s supporters, including senior members and MPs of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) were attacked and subjected to brutal beatings at the time of the disputed ousting of Mohamed Nasheed from the presidency in February 2012,” Amnesty said, referring to a brutal crackdown on opposition supporters on February 8.

“Despite concerns expressed by Amnesty International, a National Commission of Inquiry investigating the circumstances of Nasheed’s ousting, and the Maldives Human Rights Commission, no one has yet been brought to justice for those attacks. Nasheed’s arrest stands in contrast to government inaction in these cases and undermines its stated claim that his arrest is to uphold the rule of law.”

Related to this story

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

Foreign Minister Dunya slams Canada, Commonwealth statements on Nasheed prosecution

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

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Five police brutality cases from February 2012 ongoing at court, AG tells Majlis

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Evidence against Nazim consists only of 13 anonymised police statements

Evidence against former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim consists only of statements by 13 anonymised police officers, defence lawyers claimed last night.

At a second hearing into an illegal weapons charge, Nazim’s lawyers insisted evidence had been fabricated, and asked the Criminal Court’s three-judge panel to examine the legality of the means used to obtain evidence.

Nazim was charged with illegal weapons possession after police raided the then-defence minister’s apartment on January 18 and discovered a pistol and three bullets in a bedside drawer. Nazim was subsequently dismissed from the cabinet and arrested on additional charges of treason and terrorism.

Nazim’s lawyer Maumoon Hameed said some of the police statements were dated a year back, and argued anonymised witnesses would obstruct Nazim’s right to a free and fair trial as it would be impossible for the defence to determine if the officer had in fact been present on the scene during the raid.

But presiding Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf told Hameed to focus on the content of the statements, and suggested judges would determine the authenticity of the witnesses.

Meanwhile, state prosecutors claimed it was necessary to anonymise witnesses to ensure their safety.

Major blunders

Hameed also pointed to what he called major blunders by state prosecutors, including a decision to withdraw charges against Nazim’s wife during the first hearing, allegedly in light of new information found in a pen drive confiscated during the raid.

According to prosecutors, the documents show Nazim was conspiring with opposition Jumhooree Party Leader Gasim Ibrahim’s Villa group to harm senior government officials.

State prosecutors were also forced to change charges from illegal weapons possession to importing and possessing illegal weapons midway through yesterday’s hearing due to an error in the charge sheet.

Noting that evidence obtained by unlawful means is inadmissible in court, Hameed contended the search warrant issued by Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed was unlawful.

Station Inspector Ahmed Azmath Abdulla had obtained the warrant on his superior’s orders, not on information he had received, Hameed said.

Further, there had been no police intelligence reports on the presence of illegal weapons at Nazim’s apartment, he alleged.

Police must scrutinise and verify information before obtaining a warrant that violates a citizen’s privacy, he added.

The bench, however, pointed to a High Court ruling in which the appellate court said it could not rule on the legality of the search warrant as the case was ongoing at the Criminal Court.

Hameed noted the High Court’s ruling ordered the Criminal Court to rule on the warrant’s legality during the trial. Judge Yoosuf said the defence’s request had been noted and asked Hameed to speak on the evidence itself.

Hameed also asked for an open and public trial in a larger hall, saying Nazim had no confidence in Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin.

But judges said the trial was already public as media and members of the public were allowed to observe hearings. Ten reporters and ten members of the public were allowed into the courtroom.

Evidence

Hameed asked the state to provide additional information, including a video recording of the raid, forensic analysis reports, copies of data obtained from the pen drive, copies of the forms submitted to the Criminal Court to obtain the search warrant, statements by all police officers during the investigation, video recordings of interviews with Nazim, his family and his security officers, and lists of police officers on duty on the night of the raid.

The extensive list was necessary to determine if the evidence had been fabricated, he said.

State prosecutors said they would issue the requested documents upon further review.

Nazim’s family in a statement last week urged the international community to step up pressure on President Yameen’s administration, claiming “there is no hope that Nazim can expect a fair trial” due to a “notoriously politicised judiciary.”

“Nazim never expected to be where he is now. But he has fallen foul of a political conspiracy, one in which powerful forces within the Maldivian government have sought to destroy him and thus prevent him from challenging for the leadership of the ruling party,” Nazim’s family explained in a letter to the international community.

The Maldives Police Services have denied planting evidence and framing the former minister, insisting officers had acted professionally during the midnight raid.

The government has maintained the arrests and charges against Nazim demonstrate “no one is above the law,” and says it has no influence over the trial, claiming charges were initiated by an independent Prosecutor General and tried through an impartial judiciary.

Related to this story:

Ex-Defence Minister calls for an open, public trial

No hope for fair trial, says former defense minister’s family

Nazim accused of conspiring with Villa group to harm state officials

Ex defense minister’s wife charged with illegal weapons possession

Nazim remains in custody as High Court rejects appeal

Former Defence Minister Nazim remanded for 15 days

Police deny framing Nazim as former Commissioner alleges politicisation

No forensic evidence against Nazim, says legal team

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed ordered Judge Abdulla’s arrest, says Tholhath

Former President Mohamed Nasheed ordered the military to detain Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012, former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu told the Criminal Court last night.

At last night’s hearing of his trial on terrorism charges, Tholhath said the operation to arrest Judge Abdulla – dubbed ‘Liberty Shield’ – was initiated by Nasheed and carried out by then-Malé Area Commander Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi, currently an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for mid-Hithadhoo constituency.

According to trial observers from the Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN), state prosecutors noted that Tholhath had confessed to initiating Operation Liberty Shield during a previous trial at the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court.

Asked whether Nasheed directly gave the order to Didi – bypassing the defence minister – Tholhath’s lawyer said details of the orders would be explained after the state presents its witnesses.

Tholhath insisted that Nasheed had ordered the judge’s detention on Girifushi Island.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest triggered a police and military mutiny forcing Nasheed’s resignation on February 7, 2012.

In January 2013, Tholhath told parliament’s Government Oversight Committee that Nasheed had not resigned “under duress” in a a coup d’etat. However, Tholhath had previously claimed that Nasheed’s life was in danger on February 7, 2012 and that the former president had no choice but to resign.

During the 2013 presidential campaign, Tholhath campaigned for Jumhooree Party Leader Gasim Ibrahim and later backed eventual winner Abdulla Yameen.

Terrorism trials

At last night’s hearing, Tholhath’s lawyer asked state prosecutors to clarify which offence the former minister was being charged with under Article 2 of the anti-terrorism law.

When the prosecutor explained that the offence was “enforced disappearance,” the lawyer asked whether the state has decided that the highest authority of the military gave orders that amounted to terrorism, and whether the state was suggesting the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) was a “terrorist organisation” if soldiers enforce their commanders’ orders.

The lawyer also asked why soldiers involved in the operation were not being charged as accomplices.

In reply, State Prosecutor Abdulla Rabiu said senior officers of the military “used the institution as a veil to commit this atrocity,” noting that senior officials would have had the opportunity to seek legal advice.

The defence lawyer said then-Home Minister Hassan Afeef informed Tholhath that the chief judge was a threat to national security as he was blocking corruption investigations, releasing dangerous criminals, and undermining the criminal justice system.

The lawyer also contended that the Human Rights Commission of Maldives’ (HRCM) investigation could not be admissible as the commission was not legally authorised to investigate acts of terrorism.

However, the prosecutor insisted that the HRCM Act confers powers on the commission to investigate terrorism.

After the judges ruled that the procedural issues were not an impediment to continuing the trial, both the prosecution and defence then submitted a list of evidentiary documents and witnesses, including senior officers of the police and military.

Adjourning the hearing, Judge Abdulla Didi said testimony from state witnesses would be heard at the next trial date.

At last night’s hearing of Nasheed’s trial, Judge Didi and Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf ruled that there was no conflict of interest for the pair to preside over the trial, despite having testified as witnesses in the case’s investigation.

Along with Nasheed, Tholhath, and Didi, former Chief of Defence Forces Major General (Retired) Moosa Ali Jaleel and Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Ziyad are also on trial on terrorism charges over the chief judge’s arrest.

All five defendants have pleaded not guilty to the terrorism charges. The charges were filed under Article 2(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1990, which criminalizes kidnappings, forced disappearances and abductions and carries a jail term of between 10 to 15 years.

At a hearing earlier this week, Jaleel denied any involvement in the judge’s arrest, claiming he neither received nor given any orders to take the chief judge into military custody.

Didi was meanwhile hospitalised on Sunday night after complaining of chest pains. His family told Minivan News today that the retired general would be flown overseas as soon as doctor’s give approval.

Related to this story

Judges Didi and Yousuf 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

Chief Judge “took entire criminal justice system in his fist”: Afeef

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former chief of defence forces denies involvement in Judge Abdulla arrest

Defence Minister Major General (Retired) Moosa Ali Jaleel has denied any involvement as then-chief of defence forces in the military’s controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

At the second hearing of his trial on terrorism charges last night, Jaleel repeatedly said he neither received nor gave any orders to arrest the judge.

Prior to the judge’s arrest on January 16, then-Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfan took over many responsibilities of the highest-ranking commander, Jaleel explained, which he contended was against the Armed Forces Act.

Jaleel had told parliament’s Government Oversight Committee in January 2013 that Tholhath usurped the army chief’s powers through a strategic defence directive (SDD), which required area commanders to answer directly to the defence minister.

Jaleel’s lawyer, Adam Asif, said Tholhath informed the chief of defence forces of the operation – dubbed ‘Liberty Shield’ – to take the judge into military custody on the night of January 16, adding that Jaleel had told the defence minister that it should not be done without a Supreme Court order.

Tholhath and then-Malé Area Commander Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi – currently opposition Maldivian Democratic Party MP for mid-Hithadhoo constituency – was in charge of the operation, Jaleel said.

The pair are also on trial on terrorism charges along with former President Mohamed Nasheed and Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Ziyad.

All five defendants have pleaded not guilty to the terrorism charges. The charges were filed under Article 2(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1990, which criminalises kidnappings and abductions and carries a jail term of between 10 to 15 years.

President Abdulla Yameen appointed Jaleel to the cabinet on January 20 shortly after sacking former Defence Minister Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim. Jaleel joined the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives in January 2014 and was subsequently appointed Maldives Ambassador to Pakistan.

At last night’s hearing, Jaleel repeatedly said the chief of defence forces had been reduced to a “ceremonial” official by Tholhath and that he was not consulted over the judge’s arrest.

However, Jaleel said he participated in meetings between the heads of the police and military to discuss challenges posed to law enforcement and domestic security by the Criminal Court’s alleged release of dangerous criminals and refusal to grant search and arrest warrants to police.

Jaleel said he also attended a meeting to discuss the issue with the Supreme Court bench.

However, Jaleel stressed that arresting the chief judge of the Criminal Court was not raised during any of the meetings.

In a back and forth between the prosecution and defence, State Prosecutor Aishath Fazna questioned whether the chief of defence forces was fulfilling his responsibility if he had been unaware of the impending arrest of the judge.

State prosecutors then submitted evidence against Jaleel, including a video of Judge Abdulla’s arrest and audio clips of public remarks by Nasheed at political rallies.

Senior officers of the police and military as well as former Police Commissioner Ahmed Faseeh were named among state witnesses, whom prosecutors asked to be summoned to court.

Jaleel also named six witnesses, including senior police officers and soldiers involved in the operation to arrest the chief judge, who he said would testify to the army chief’s non-involvement.

Adjourning the hearing, Judge Abdulla Didi said testimony of state witnesses would be heard at the next trial date.

Along with Judge Didi, the three-judge panel of the Criminal Court is comprised of Judge Abdul Bari Yousuf and Judge Shujau Usman.

Meanwhile, at hearings of the trials of MP Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Ziyad – conducted separately last night – Judge Didi gave the pair three additional days to prepare their defence.

While Nasheed’s lawyers have named Judges Didi and Bari as witnesses – noting the pair’s presence at Judge Abdulla’s residence during the arrest – Judge Didi asked the defence lawyer not to name any judge on the bench as witnesses.

Judge Didi said the bench would not accept any of the judges as witnesses.

The third hearing of Nasheed’s trial has been scheduled for 8:00pm tomorrow night (March 2).

Related to this story

Nasheed’s lawyers name Judges Didi, Yousuf as witnesses, request their withdrawal from terrorism trial

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

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

Chief Judge “took entire criminal justice system in his fist”: Afeef

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)