Tag: trial

No time for fair trial before elections, says former President

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed has said there is insufficient time to conduct a fair trial against him before the presidential elections scheduled for September 7.

The former President, who is being tried for the controversial detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed – charges Nasheed’s party contend is a politically-motivated attempt to bar him from contesting the election – said having the state arrest the MDP candidate and then hold elections would be “akin to play-acting.”

“The Maldivian people must receive justice. Therefore, God willing, I will come out to face that justice in 2018,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed also called upon Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz to temporarily halt the trial. He said the Chief Justice had previously taken a stand on similar cases of national interest, and hence must comment on the trial in question.

The former President also said that his legal team would appeal a verdict released by the High Court on Monday, after it upheld the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court where he is being tried.

“This trial that is to be held at the Hulhumale’ Court concerns a huge coup d’etat. The way I see it, this trial should have 30 or so hearings, at least. Lawyers should get a minimum period of 15 days between hearings. Otherwise, we cannot say this is a just process,” he said.

Nasheed said that if things proceeded at the current pace, the trial “will be still be ongoing when we win the upcoming elections.”

“A serving president cannot be tried in a court during his term without parliamentary approval. I don’t see that approval coming from the parliament,” Nasheed said.

“There isn’t a single person who hasn’t made some kind of comment about this trial now, from ministers to princes to island chiefs to imams,” Nasheed said, alleging that the government, too, had made a variety of comments in an attempt to influence the trial.

Nasheed said that he did not believe there was any chance of a fair trial under the present circumstances.

The UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Minister for South Asia, Alistair Burt, has meanwhile met with President Mohamed Waheed and “emphasised the importance of moving swiftly towards free, fair and inclusive elections later this year.”

“I also stressed the importance of all parties being able to participate with the candidate of their choice. I was encouraged to learn that the date for these elections has now been confirmed for 7 September 2013,” Burt said in a statement.

The former President has meanwhile departed on an official visit to India.

MDP seeking arrest of police commissioner

Nasheed also stated that work was underway to ensure the arrest of Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz, whom he accused of “illegally ascending to the post of Commissioner after the coup d’etat.”

“We are working to bring all those who participated in orchestrating the coup d’etat to justice. It is only a small number of police and army officials who have brought about this coup. Now they are arresting innocent citizens,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed said the core issue now facing the country was resolving the alleged “coup d’etat” brought about by Abdulla Riyaz and the Minister of Defence Mohamed Nazim.

Nasheed made the remarks during a press conference on Tuesday (February 5) in relation to a former member of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and a Councillor of the island of Narudhoo in Shaviyani Atoll, Hussain Siraj, joining the MDP.

With Siraj joining MDP, the party has now gained a majority in the Narudhoo Island Council.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed returns from visiting ill father

Former President Mohamed Nasheed returned to Male’ around 10:30pm Thursday night following a trip to Bangkok where he was visiting his ill father, reports Sun Online.

Nasheed left the Maldives December 25, 2012 following multiple immigration delays to his departure to Thailand.

This included the withholding of his passport due to the ongoing trial against him in relation to the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdullah Mohamed while he was president, as well as a “technical error” at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport on December 21, local media reports.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court scheduling practices enabling judicial corruption: senior legal official

A senior legal official who served under the current and former administrations has claimed the country’s legal system is wide open to corruption, by allowing individual judges to schedule court hearings at their whim.

The legal figure, who has been involved in some of the country’s highest profile cases in recent years, told Minivan News that it was “quite evident” that the lack of a centralised system for scheduling legal hearings was not only resulting in massive inefficiency, but also allowing for corruption within the country’s court system.

Both the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office and the country’s judicial watchdog body have maintained they have limited involvement at present in deciding when hearings should be scheduled – with almost all decisions being taken by individual courts.

However, a PG’s Office spokesperson claimed that the Criminal Procedure Code presently sitting within the People’s Majlis was, if passed, anticipated to allow pre-trial hearings to give the prosecution and other parties a greater say in agreeing general timeliness for trials.

The senior legal source, who asked to remain anonymous, concurred that the responsibility for scheduling trial and sentencing hearings was presently the responsibility of individual courts and the judges overhearing them. The source alleged the system had created a situation where the judiciary, in certain cases, set hearings either as soon as possible, or instead delay them for up to several years depending on their own preferences and political motivations.

Such inconsistencies within the scheduling of several cases involving senior parliament and political figures – or their close associates – had left courts open to allegations of corruption and political motivation, the senior legal official claimed.

In one case submitted by the PG’s Office that involved a staff member working for former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom facing allegations of child abuse, the source claimed there had been a delay of several years between the trial’s last last hearing and sentencing – despite all evidence having been submitted to the court.

“The judge presiding over the trail announced that the next hearing would be to deliver sentencing, but there had been delays of several years before this was scheduled,” the source claimed. “I understand letters were written by the PG’s Office asking to expedite the case, yet the situation [of delayed hearings] is quite common.”

The legal source claimed that this was just one example of a number of cases that had undergone significant delays – sometimes over the space of years – awaiting their next hearing within the nation’s courts without any specified reason.

“There must be hundreds of cases like this,” he said. “There is no central system for scheduling hearings, just six or seven judges all acting independently of each other.”

In outlining alleged inconsistencies within the scheduling of court hearings, the source pointed to the decision of the Criminal Court on February 23 this year to dismiss three long-standing counts of fraud against Parliament Deputy Speaker and ruling-coalition aligned MP Ahmed Nazim all at once.

The decision was taken by the court 16 days after the controversial transfer of power on February 7, with the presiding judge stating that Nazim’s “acts were not enough to criminalise him”.

“The Criminal Court dropped all of Mr Nazim’s cases,” the anonymous source claimed. I had never seen a criminal case where so much evidence failed to lead to a conviction.”

In an interview to the local media outlet Sun following the rulings, Nazim claimed that a total of four cases against him over alleged fraud were baseless and had been leveled by former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration, using false evidence.

Nasheed is currently being tried over the detention of a Criminal Court chief Judge, who he alleges took the country’s legal system into his own hands and posed a threat to “national security”.

Aside from allegations of potential corruption, the source also raised fears that the present lack of a centralised scheduling system was failing to promote accountability or efficiency in the nation’s judiciary.

“If for instance the PG’s Office files two different cases about the same suspect, the courts might schedule one hearing for today and another next week, with the judge unaware that there are pending cases against the suspect.

Mandate

Responding to Minivan News over the allegations of potential judicial corruption, court watchdog the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) referred the matter to the Department of Judicial Administration, saying the scheduling of hearings and any such concerns were not within its mandate.

“The scheduling of court hearings are administrative procedures undertaken by individual courts,” the JSC said.

The Department of Judical Services meanwhile said that when hearing criminal cases there presently existed no time limits by which time court hearings should be scheduled.

“In Criminal cases, there are no regulations stipulating requirements about such time limits. However, the court works on a guideline administratively adopted” said department spokesperson Ahmed Maajid.

Minivan News was still waiting for a response from the Department of Judical Services about these administrative guidelines at time of press.

Questioned as to whether the legal sources were shared by the prosecutor general, a spokesperson for the PG’s Office told Minivan News that it was for the courts to determine the schedule of court hearings.

“Generally we are not involved, unless, for example, a hearing involves travel to some of the country’s outer islands, then we might discuss a schedule with the courts,” he said.

The PG’s Office said it did not “usually” write to the courts regarding the issue of court scheduling , unless it had itself received complaints over the matter.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Half of former President’s legal team barred from court

Two of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s lawyers have been barred from representing him by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court.

Nasheed is being tried for ordering the detention of Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during his final days in office, a move Nasheed’s government defended on grounds of national security after institutions responsible for holding the judiciary accountable failed to do so.

Spokesperson for the Department of Judicial Administration Latheefa Gasim was reported as informing local media that lawyer and former Youth Minister Hassan Latheef had been barred from the trial as the state had called him as a witness.

Another of Nasheed’s defence lawyers, Ahmed Abdulla Afeef, was barred as he had not signed new behavioural regulations for lawyers recently issued by the Supreme Court.

This regulation, published earlier this year in June, prevents lawyers from openly criticising discrepancies within the courts, among other restrictions.

Following its publication a number of the country’s top lawyers held a crisis meeting to try and amend the regulations, including Prosecutor General Abdulla Muiz, Deputy Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem (now resigned) and Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed.

Nasheed has two remaining lawyers: former President’s Office Legal Advisor Hisaan Hussain and Criminal Court lawyer Abdulla Shair.

Latheef was not responding to calls at time of press, while Hisan told Minivan News that Nasheed’s defence counsel were preparing a statement on the matter.

A legal source familiar with the Nasheed case told Minivan News that Afeef was one of the lawyers who contested the legality of the Supreme Court’s issuing of behavioural guidelines for lawyers, which he had refused to sign in protest.

“He submitted the matter to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) in writing. However in the interest of this trial he has submitted the documents to sign the decree,” the source stated.

Latheef, meanwhile, had been summoned as a witness by the state to prove that Abdulla Mohamed had been kept on the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF) training island of Girifushi, “a fact not disputed by anyone,” the source said.

“The court is right – a key witness cannot serve as a defence lawyer because of conflict of interest,” the legal source added, “but it looks like a deliberate attempt by the Prosecutor General to sabotage the defence counsel and make its work difficult.”

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have previously alleged that the trial is a politically-motivated effort to convict and bar the former President from competing in future elections.

During the first hearing, Nasheed’s defence challenged the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court which it alleged had been created by the JSC without constitutional authority.

The JSC has also appointed the three-member panel of judges which overseeing the trial of the former President. The Commission’s members include two of Nasheed’s direct political opponents, including Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – Deputy of the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) – and Gasim Ibrahim, resort tycoon, media owner, MP and leader of the Jumhoree Party (JP), also a member of the governing coalition.

UK lawyers to assist defence

The MDP has meanwhile confirmed that two senior UK-based legal experts – one a specialist in Shariah Law – will be joining the defence team: Sir Ivan Lawrence QC and Barrister Ali Mohammed Azhar.

One lawyer told Minivan News that the appointment of two foreign legal experts in a domestic trial was an “unprecedented” development in the Maldives’ legal history, however Nasheed’s legal team has stated that the foreign lawyers will be unable to represent the former President in court and will instead provide advice and counsel.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP’s ‘Journey of Pledges’ reaches Nilandhoo with no sign of security forces

The Maldivian Democratic Party’s (MDP) ‘Journey of Pledges’ has today reached Nilandhoo in Ghaafu Alif Atoll with no sign of the security forces.

Local media yesterday reported that boats had been sent to return former President Mohamed Nasheed to Male’ to face trial .

Party spokesman Hamed Abdul Ghafoor said that the five boat flotilla had received a warm welcome from the island’s 1000-strong population as well as the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) dominated council.

“We don’t see the [political] tension here,” said Ghafoor. “Everyone is in high spirits.”

When asked about the reports in local media that the coastguard had been deployed from Male’ yesterday, Ghafoor said that the party had not received any official word from the authorities.

“As far as we had heard, boats left from Male’ at 4:00pm and should have arrived in Villingili by midnight,” he said.

“There were also rumours that a platoon was leaving from Addu but we haven’t heard anything from the police yet,” he added.

Yesterday the police declined to comment and the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) denied that any officials had been sent to retrieve Nasheed.

The day after Nasheed left for the Southern atolls, in contravention of a travel ban, the courts instructed police to produce Nasheed at a rescheduled hearing in the Abdulla Mohamed detention case this coming Sunday.

Security forces made no attempt to prevent Nasheed from leaving Male’ on Monday.

Judicial Administration Department Director Ahmed Maajid told Minivan News yesterday that, despite the order, the former president was “not to be detained”.

In the event of Nasheed being taken back to the capital, Ghafoor was uncertain as to whether the trip, scheduled to visit over 30 islands in 14 days, would continue.

“The trip is very much driven by a charismatic leader. It may fizzle out if the government acted aggressively like that,” said Ghafoor.

“We are not fighters – it would be silly to have a fighting force confront us on the high seas. But you can’t put anything past them,” he continued.

Maldivian law does include provision for trial in absentia if the defendant in a criminal case is not produced by the police.

However, MDP lawyer Hassan Latheef said that this would be very unusual and, to his knowledge, does not have any precedence in Maldivian case law.

Nasheed has requested in writing that his MNDF security detail – provided under the Former President’s Act – not accompany him on the tour.

The MNDF released a statement today detailing this, saying that it could not take any responsibility for harm that might befall the former president whilst not under its protection.

It was also stated that the defence ministry had asked the Majlis for advice on how it should act in such circumstances.

Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz has been summoned to the Majlis’ 241 security committee to discuss the protection provided to politicians following the murder of MP Afrasheem Ali on Monday evening.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court asks police to present Nasheed at rescheduled trial

Former President Mohamed Nasheed today began touring the country’s Southern Atolls less than 24 hours after boycotting a trial against him in protest at what he and the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) allege is a lack of independence within the nation’s judiciary.

However the Department of Judicial Administration today confirmed that police were “to produce” Nasheed at a rescheduled hearing at 4:00pm on Sunday, October 7.

Department Director Ahmed Maajid told Minivan News that despite the order, the former president was “not to be detained”.

With the campaigning beginning today in Gaafu Alif Atoll, the MDP has claimed that uncertainty remains over whether Nasheed would be able to complete the tour without being taken into custody by authorities.

Despite the Department of Judicial Administration’s order, no official communication from authorities has so far been received by the MDP following Nasheed’s decision to boycott his trial, contravening a court order requiring him to remain in the capital.

The court hearing was to be the first in the case concerning Nasheed’s detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed, while in office.

The government meanwhile has told the Agence France Presse (AFP) news service that the former president could be taken into custody should he fail to comply with a second summons for his trial over the detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

“The court will issue him another summons,” President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad told the AFP.  “After the second summons, if he does not comply, the standard procedure is they (the court) will instruct the police to bring him in.”

Both Masood and President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza were not responding to calls from Minivan News at the time of press.

Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed told Minivan News that the existing protocols relating to a defendant failing to attend their trial were a matter of judicial process that were applied to any defendant, regardless of their position.

“Nasheed or anyone else is subjected to the same set of rules governing trials when they face criminal charges,” he claimed. “The state would not commit any act which would amount to contempt of court whenever it is asked to assist in bringing a suspect to court who wilfully avoids an appearance or absconds a trial.”

Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz was also not responding to calls from Minivan News at the time of press.

MDP Spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, who is travelling with Nasheed as part of the party’s 14 day tour, said that no official correspondence had been received from authorities at present concerning Nasheed’s decision not to attend yesterday’s trial.

“[The authorities] have done everything they can to try and stop this tour, though we have just arrived and the party is in good spirits,” he said.

When questioned if the MDP was confident Nasheed would be able to complete the tour following his decision to defy court rulings against him, Ghafoor said it remained too early to tell at present.

“Obviously we hope he will be able to complete the tour, but they might come and get him at some point. We will have to wait and see,” he said. “We have just arrived at our first destination on Kolamaafushi, the island is very yellow (the official colour of the MDP), it is quite a thing to see.”

Another source travelling with Nasheed as part of the tour, who asked not to be identified, told Minivan News that there had been no communications so far between the former president’s representatives, the government or the courts.

The source claimed that from their own understanding, Nasheed was being treated under standard protocols employed against any Maldivian national failing to attend a criminal trial, with a second summons expected to be issued by the courts at a later date.  A failure to comply with this second order would likely see police ordered to bring the former president to court, they added.

Boycott decision

Nasheed’s departure to participate in his party’s ‘Vaudhuge Dhathuru’ (Journey of Pledges) campaign in the country’s southern atolls reflected a wider MDP decision to no longer follow any orders given by the courts of the Maldives until changes proposed by international entities were brought to the Maldivian judicial system.

Nasheed’s controversial decision to detain Judge Abdulla in January 2012 followed the judge’s repeated release of former Justice Minister – and current Home Minister – Dr Mohamed Jameel, in December 2011, whom the government had accused of inciting religious hatred over the publication of his party’s pamphlet, ‘President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians’.

The former government government further accused the judge of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, having links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” so as to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases, among other allegations.

Nasheed justified the judge’s arrest based on his constitutional mandate to protect the constitution. Judge Abdulla had in September 2011 received an injunction from the Civil Court preventing his investigation by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the watchdog tasked with overseeing the judiciary, which complied with the ruling.

Former President’s Member on the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, has written a book extensively documenting the watchdog body’s undermining of judicial independence, and complicity in sabotaging the separation of powers.

Over 80 pages, backed up with documents, evidence and letters, The Failed Silent Coup: in Defeat They Reached for the Gun recounts the experience of the outspoken whistleblower as she attempted to stop the commission from re-appointing unqualified and ethically-suspect judges loyal to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, after it dismissed the professional and ethical standards demanded by Article 285 of the constitution as “symbolic”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed fails to appear in court, defies travel ban

Additional reporting Daniel Bosley, Mariyath Mohamed and Mohamed Naahii.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed departed Male’ today to participate in his party’s ‘Vaudhuge Dhathuru’ (Journey of Pledges) campaign in the southern atolls, defying a court order that he remain in the capital.

Nasheed’s departure contravenes an order from the Hulhumale Magistrate Court last week that Nasheed be confined to Male’ ahead of his court trial, which was to be conducted at 4:00pm today.

Journalists in the courtroom were required to undergo heavy security screening and were stripped of mobile phones, recording equipment and notepads. However, 20 minutes later a court official stated that the hearing was cancelled as the defendant and his lawyers had failed to appear. A new date was not set.

Nasheed meanwhile held a rally from atop a yellow flagged dhoni in front of 500 demonstrators near the petrol jetty in the south of Male’, before departing with five vessels and hundreds of supporters. Minivan News observed no police presence in the area.

“Once they started to set up a fabricated court, bring in judges who are not judges of that court, and the whole structure of it is so… politically motivated, it is very obvious it is not meant to serve justice,” Nasheed told the BBC.

“We intend to find out in this trip to what extent we were able to fulfil our pledges during this party’s period in government,” Nasheed told his supporters. “This is a journey of pledges. This is a journey for justice. This is a journey where we become one with the citizens.”

The party and its senior leadership will visit over 30 islands during the 14 day trip, taking in the atolls of Gaafu Alif, Gaafu Dhaalu, Fuvahmulah and Addu.

Meanwhile, the court hearing was to be the first in the case concerning Nasheed’s detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed, while in office.

Nasheed also faces charges of defaming Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz and Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim as “traitors”, following February 7’s controversial transfer of power. The first hearing in Riyaz’s case has been postponed indefinitely.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has expressed deep concern over the legality of the court’s procedures regarding the trials, which it contends are a politically-motivated attempt to convict the former president and prevent him from running in future Presidential elections.

Following the court-ordered travel ban on Nasheed ahead of the party’s southern atoll election campaign, the MDP announced that it would no longer recognise the authority of the courts in the Maldives until changes proposed by international entities were brought to the judicial system.

“This all looks very ‘Myanmar’ – using the courts and administrative manipulation to restrict political party activity,” said MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor at the time.

“While President Waheed was lobbying the Commonwealth to remove the Maldives from its human rights watch-list, his regime had detained the leader of the opposition.”

The concerns were echoed by Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) who recently downgraded the Maldivesfrom its formal agenda to a ‘matter of interest’.

“Canada is deeply troubled by the reported September 25 travel ban of former President Nasheed in Malé,” said Baird.

“The recently adopted Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report has raised substantial concerns about the independence of the judiciary. That too causes Canada grave concern as we strive to assure independent open elections in the Maldives,” he added.

“President Waheed offered no substantial defence of these questions, which is a telling response in itself,” said Baird. “Canada finds the declining state of democratic values in the Maldives alarming and deeply troubling.”

The court has maintained that the travel restriction is normal procedure for defendants ahead of court trials.

The case

Nasheed’s controversial decision to detain Judge Abdulla in January 2012 followed the judge’s repeated release of former Justice Minister – and current Home Minister – Dr Mohamed Jameel, in December 2011, whom the government had accused of inciting religious hatred over the publication of his party’s pamphlet, ‘President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians’.

Nasheed’s government further accused the judge of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, having links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” so as to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases, among other allegations.

Nasheed justified the judge’s arrest based on his constitutional mandate to protect the constitution. Judge Abdulla had in September 2011 received an injunction from the Civil Court preventing his investigation by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the watchdog tasked with overseeing the judiciary, which complied with the ruling.

Parliament’s Independent Commissions Committee, the body mandated with holding the judicial watchdog accountable, took no interest in the matter.

The then-opposition began nightly protests over the judge’s detention, while the government sought assistance from the UN and Commonwealth for urgent judicial reform.

However, Nasheed resigned on February 7 amid a police and military mutiny the day after the Commonwealth team arrived.

Judge Abdulla was released, and the Criminal Court issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest. The warrant was not acted upon.

Former Defence Minister Tholhath, former Chief of Defence Force Major General Moosa Ali Jaleel, Brigadier Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad are also facing charges for their role in detaining Judge Abdulla in January 2012.

The charges include a breach of article 81 of the Penal Code: “Arresting an innocent person intentionally and unlawfully by a state employee with the legal authority or power vested to him by his position is an offence. Punishment for a person guilty of this offence is imprisonment or banishment for 3 years or a fine of MVR 2000 (US$129.70).”

“The full story”

Former President’s Member on the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, has written a book extensively documenting the watchdog body’s undermining of judicial independence, and complicity in sabotaging the separation of powers.

Over 80 pages, backed up with documents, evidence and letters, The Failed Silent Coup: in Defeat They Reached for the Gun recounts the experience of the outspoken whistleblower as she attempted to stop the commission from re-appointing unqualified and ethically-suspect judges loyal to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, after it dismissed the professional and ethical standards demanded by Article 285 of the constitution as “symbolic”.

That moment at the conclusion of the constitutional interim period marked the collapse of the new constitution and resulted in the appointment of a illegitimate judiciary, Velezinee contends, and set in motion a chain of events that ultimately led to President Mohamed Nasheed’s arrest of Abdulla Mohamed two years later.

According to Velezinee, “the assumption that Abdulla Mohamed is a constitutionally appointed judge is based on a false premise, a political creation [which] ignores all evidence refuting this.”

“Judge Abdulla Mohamed is at the centre of this story. I believe it is the State’s duty to remove him from the judiciary. He may have the legal knowledge required of a judge; but, as the State knows full well, he has failed to reach the ethical standards equally essential for a seat on the bench.

“A judge without ethics is a judge open to influence. Such a figure on the bench obstructs justice, and taints the judiciary. These are the reasons why the Constitution links a judge’s professional qualifications with his or her moral standards,” she wrote.

“There is no legal way in which the Civil Court can rule that the Judicial Service Commission cannot take action against Abdulla Mohamed. This decision says judges are above even the Constitution. Where, with what protection, does that leave the people?” Velezinee asked.

“The Judicial Service Commission bears the responsibility for removing Abdulla Mohamed from the bench. Stories about him have circulated in the media and among the general public since 2009, but the Commission took no notice. It was blind to Abdulla Mohamed’s frequent forays outside of the ethical standards required of a judge. It ignored his politically charged rulings and media appearances.

“Abdulla Mohamed is a man who had a criminal conviction even when he was first appointed to the bench during President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s time. Several complaints of alleged judicial misconduct are pending against him. The Judicial Service Commission has ignored them all. What it did, instead, is grant him tenure – a lifetime on the bench for a man such as Abdulla Mohamed. In doing so, the Judicial Service Commission clearly failed to carry out its constitutional responsibilities. It violated the Constitution and rendered it powerless.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP and councillor charged over February 8 arson attacks not present for court hearing

An MP and a Addu City Councillor both facing charges over alleged involvement in a series of arson attacks on February 8 this year did not attend a Criminal Court hearing of their cases today.

MP Mohamed Rasheed and Addu City Councillor Ahmed Mirzad were reported not in attendance during today’s court hearing as an official chit could not be delivered to either of the men, according to the Sun Online news service.

The two men are among 40 suspects currently facing trial over allegations of involvement in attacks on several state buildings during unrest and violent clashes with authorities that occurred in the country’s second city on February 8.

Local media has said that 32 of these suspects were in attendance for the trail today,with Sun reporting that hearings within the 12ft by 13ft court room could only be held three suspects at the time.

A court official told Sun Online that the majority of the eight suspects who had failed to attend today’s trial had not reportedly received their respective chits – mostly as a result of working abroad.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government “would consider” clemency for ex-president Nasheed following trial outcome

The government has said it will have no involvement in the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed, adding it would consider the possibility of offering clemency should he eventually be found guilty.

Nasheed, who yesterday announced he had started his campaign for re-election, has called for the trial over his role in the controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed earlier this year to be expedited. The former president has alleged that the trial against him is politically motivated to prevent him from contesting in presidential elections scheduled for 2013.

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad claimed that the government was committed to its pledge of not interfering in the Maldives judicial system and played down fears of the trial being politicised.

“We would regret any parties or international organisations trying to politicise this trial,” he said. “However, after a judgement on the case has been given, if there is an opportunity to do so, I’m sure President Waheed would consider the possibility of clemency [for former President Nasheed].”

The comments were made today as Department of Judicial Administration Spokesperson Latheefa Qasim confirmed to Minivan News that the decision had been taken to appoint three judges to hear the former president’s trial. Qasim added that a date for the hearing or the identities of the three judges presiding over the trial had yet to be decided.

Last week, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was cleared to hold the trial that will see Nasheed along with several senior military figures under his command face charges for the detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

During Nasheed’s administration Judge Abdulla was accused by the government of demonstrating political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, having links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases.

Nasheed himself gave a speech to supporters in Male’ yesterday playing down the likelihood of his prosecution for the detention of the judge, while additionally launching his campaign for re-election despite no date for elections having been set.

Speaking from the Usfasgandu area in Male’, which is presently being used as a protest area by the now opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), Nasheed alleged that he was not concerned of being prosecuted,  according to local media reports.

During a speech outlining his plans to continue to pursue early elections through the MDP’s ‘direct action’ protests and political pressure, the former president claimed that he was confident of securing re-election.

MDP Spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed that Nasheed’s comments were focused on the party’s continued efforts to secure “early elections” ahead of the proposed date of July 2013.  President Waheed has said July 2013 is the earliest date for fresh polls as allowed in the country’s constitution

The MDP back in July approved a resolution that the party would choose to boycott elections should Nasheed not be able to stand as its presidential candidate after winning.

Ghafoor claimed that despite preparing for early elections, both Nasheed and the MDP had agreed to respect the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report that last week concluded the government of President Waheed had come to power constitutionally and not through a “coup d’etat” on February 7.

“We have been respecting the report, but we also have very strong reservations about the concerns raised by [Nasheed’s appointee on the commission] Ahmed ‘Gahaa’ Saeed and we would like these shortcomings to be looked into,” he said. “There are obviously issues that we have with the findings and I do not believe that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) will just choose to ignore Mr Saeed’s own reservations about the report.”

Saeed last week resigned from the five-member CNI panel approved by the government, MDP and Commonwealth, a day before the release of its findings over what he alleged was a failure by the commission to consider certain evidence and witness statements presented to the Commission.

Nasheed was also reported to have used his speech to claim that no country had so far accepted the CNI’s findings, according to local news service Sun Online.

Following the release of the CNI report last week, Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma welcomed the completed publication, urging “all concerned to respect the findings of the commission so that, moving forward, all actions and reactions reflect the sense of responsibility and restraint necessary in the best national interest.”

The US, India and the UN also called for the outcome of the CNI’s report to be respected in light of its publication.

However, Ghafoor said that Nasheed had in fact questioned the responses of various international players claiming they had been “unclear” on their views of the report.

Ghafoor added that the party would continue to lobby to have the reservations raised by Saeed concerning the CNI report addressed.

Beyond reservations with the CNI, the MDP claimed that it had been willing to work with the government of President Waheed in what it called the “common interests” of the public by offering to join his coalition government.

“We do not want to be working with this government, we ourselves want to see early elections as soon as possible,” he said.

However, President Waheed yesterday announced he had opted against including the MDP in his national unity government.

While the MDP – in light of the CNI’s findings – had called for clarification on whether it was presently the ruling or opposition party, the President’s Office responded that the matter was irrelevant under the country’s presidential system of governance.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)