Tag: velezinee

Q&A: “Silent coup has become the armed coup” – Aishath Velezinee

Aishath Velezinee was formerly the President’s Member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the watchdog body assigned to appoint and investigate complaints against judges. Two years ago she turned whistleblower and alleged the JSC was complicit in protecting judges appointed under the Gayoom’s government, and was colluding with parliament to ensure legal impunity for senior opposition supporters. In January 2011 she was stabbed twice in the back in broad daylight.

JJ Robinson: What do you think of the international community’s initial reaction to the events of February 7?

Aishath Velezinee: I think they fail to see the dynamics behind this country – it is all very personal and based on individuals.

[Maldivians] have a very deep understanding of this – the actors involved. The international community does not. So the international community is taking much at face value, and they are measuring what they see against the standards they hold.

These are not our standards – what I’ve seen in the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) is far below the standards of what you would expect from ordinary people in any democracy. An ordinary person would not act like the duty bearers here have done. It is absolutely unbelievable.

JJ: You have often spoken about a ‘silent coup’ – a collusion between the judiciary, the JSC and opposition-aligned members of parliament to preserve the pliability of the judiciary as it was under former Justice Ministry and President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. What do you mean when you said ‘the silent coup has become the armed coup’?

AV: The heart of the silent coup was the Criminal Court. The former regime wanted to maintain their influence on the criminal court.

You can see that a number of powerful and influential politicians and businessmen – and businessmen who are politicians – have cases pending against them. This gives reason as to why they would want to keep a hold on the criminal court.

Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed was the man facilitating them to carry on with that, giving cover to the very serious corruption that has been continuing for a number of years in this country. This is highly entrenched corruption – state corruption.

When Abdulla Mohamed went missing – as they say – I believe the opposition feared they were losing control over the judiciary, and that is why they came out on the streets. If you look at the so called public protests, it was opposition leaders and gang members. We did not see the so-called public joining them – they were a public nuisance really.

For nearly three weeks they were going around destroying public property and creating disturbances. It wasn’t a people thing – we can say that. We locals – we know who was there on the streets. There is footage and evidence available of it. We’ve seen the destruction they were causing in Male’ every day.

To the international community it’s a crowd of people – and to them that’s the public. It’s a public protest to them. But it was not.

Then we need to consider who was involved in the free Abdulla Mohamed campaign. These are the same people I have previously accused of covering up and being conspirators in the silent coup. Amongst them was Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed – currently the chair of the parliamentary oversight committee on independent commissions – who has a duty to investigate the JSC.

On 6 February 2012, I finally got in writing from the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) their response to my complaints about the JSC in May 2010.

They said that the matter of Article 285 and the JSC’s high treason was forwarded to Parliament for further investigation on 9 September, 2010.

Where is it? We haven’t heard anything of it. So why was MP Nasheed not doing his duty and investigating this? Why was he out on the street campaigning to free Abdulla Mohamed when this question is before him and he needs to look into it? Why was MP Abdul Raheem bragging on VTV – immediately after the national security committee meeting – that he had deliberately disrupted the meeting to prevent me from speaking? It’s a huge cover up.

JJ: Why do you think the international community is unaware of this?

AV: The international community is not fluent in the Dhivehi language. And all of the evidence I have – on tape – is in Dhivehi. I cannot get them to listen to that. All they hear is me talking, and as you know, nobody else has dared to come out publicly and take this up.

JJ: Where does this place you now? Considering you have all this evidence you must have some concern for your safety?

AV: All I have is with the police, the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), the ACC, and with parliament. So I don’t know. They could easily destroy it. It’s not being shared with the parliament. I have asked MPs in the independent commissions committee if they are aware of this letter from the ACC – they are not. Since 2010 we have been working with the judiciary whose legitimacy is actually in question.

The issue was not taken up by anybody. The issue of Article 285 and JSC’s high treason was taken up by myself, as a sitting member under oath, and I think that should be enough reason for them to investigate. But the only response I get from people is: “There were 10 people in there. Why just you?”

In a conspiracy where a majority of the people join together to commit a crime, why would they come out and speak about it? High treason was committed in the JSC with the confidence that there would be no investigation.

I believe the Speaker sitting there has been the cover for the JSC to cater to their old masters. They are very confident that the silent coup will remain uninvestigated.

JJ: On paper, the reappointment of the judges in 2010 occurred before parliament had passed the requisite legislation determining the educational, moral and ethical criteria for a judge? Does that not undermine the legitimacy of all verdicts issued after that period?

AV: Article 285 is not tied to any law. It is to prevent politicisation of the judiciary. The JSC is supposed to be working independently as an institution, and although it includes people from various parties – MPs and the Attorney General – each of us had a conduct of conduct under which we were supposed to be impartial. But that’s not how the JSC was functioning.

Everyone assumes because I was appointed by the President that I was colluding with the President. But if anyone bothered to look at the evidence – the recordings of the meetings – they would find the reality is different.

JJ: This evidence you have – are people just not bothering to look at it, or are they unable to do so because of the language barrier?

AV: Nobody has looked at the evidence. It has all been based on weight – nine to one. Woman to nine men. I feel very insulted.

JJ: Some of the visiting media expressed an interest in the situation with the judge and the lead up to the judicial crisis which precipitated these events. But how can you explain that in a two minute soundbite?

AV: You can’t. It is too complex. All of this is very complex and we can’t take anything at face value. We need to access available documentation, and we need people to access the other evidence available. But all the fact finding missions and investigation teams are based on just talking to people.

If you just talk to people, the story you get depends on who you talk to. The facts are the evidence.

People have asked me why I did not take it up with groups like HRCM. There is no place I have not taken it to – and I could not access the international community when I did not even have an office. I was under oath as a JSC member, but the commission put me out on the street to work. I was working like an activist – and alone.

JJ: On the bright side many people must be feeling they should have listened to you a long time ago?

AV: Yes. But it seems we missed the chance to fix it – to fix Article 285.

Now it’s politics that will solve this. In 1957 we had a constitution for seven months. Now we have had one for three years and failed again. We have to do what we failed to do and focus on strengthening judiciary. But when a serious national security issue being examined in parliamentary committee is disrupted and it ceases to continue with investigation, what does it say?

The Maldivian Democratic Party needs to focus on 285. They need to start talking constitution, about how they got into this. They need to back me – I submitted these cases and President Nasheed was still waiting for a response. You can’t run a state without a judiciary – and the judiciary is still under the control of the former regime

JJ: Even if early elections are called, that would not help the judicary?

AV: There is no judiciary as guaranteed to the people under this constitution.

JJ: What do you make of the new Attorney General, Azima Shukoor?

AV: I know her from primary school. We were in the same class until grade 10. I know her quite well – and I also know what she’s been doing in recent years.

I also know Gayoom’s government because I worked in that government for 19 years and six months. I know all of the individual players in this game, very, very well.

Gayoom had this practice of moving around people he found difficult, so I had the opportunity to work in a number of government departments and ministries, and to get to know quite a lot of powerful players in the opposition today. I know how they operate – their modus operandi. I know how they function.

My mistake was to trust. I trusted members of the JSC to uphold the constitution. I trusted the Speaker to uphold the constitution. And where I saw they were acting against the constitution I found it really hard to comprehend. It was happening every day. But I couldn’t believe it until the last moment.

JJ: Where to from here? What do you think happens now?

AV: Article 285 is going to be buried in history. I do not think we have the willingness or capacity in any of the state institutions to fully investigate exactly what happened in the JSC.

But what happened in the JSC must be haunting some of its members, if, months after I was stabbed, they are still discussing in a recorded sitting about how to silence me. On 17 Janurary 2011, two weeks after I was stabbed, MP Dr Afrashim Ali said I was “dangerous”, and the high court appointee was saying “We have to think about our future, our security. We have to silence her.” I have audios clips of that meeting on the 17th. I have the whole 1.5 hour recording – it’s there, you can hear it. A friend helped me do cuts and I have circulated it on Facebook. I put it on YouTube (Part one, two, three).

They fear an investigation because if there is an investigation, what I have said will be proven. All they are betting on is using their political weight to prevent an investigation.

JJ: You are making copies of the evidence?

AV: When Nasheed resigned I put everything away – I have nothing in my home any more. These are probably the only copies we have now.

Considering that the JSC actually tampered with and edited the audio recordings when they submitted them to parliament in 2010, they have shown they will destroy the evidence.

I have copies of audio tapes of proceedings in the JSC during Article 285 – and after. As well as from when their focus was on covering it up.

JJ: It is interesting that they continued to record the meetings, given all the other procedures not followed.

AV: They were not recording meetings when I initially joined the commission. They were working completely unconstitutionally.

The JSC refused technical assistance from the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) and others. Instead they were themselves talking about strengthening the judiciary. What judiciary was there to strengthen when it was unconstitutionally appointed? It’s actually the people who have lost, not President Nasheed or the so-called President Waheed. The people have lost.

JJ: What do you make of Dr Waheed? Given his UN background and benign demeanour, he seems an unlikely leader of a coup d’état.

AV: He might have thought it was a power grab and that he was the man who was going to lead this. But he may be realising that he too is being played, is a tool of the opposition – of Gayoom’s family. I think he found out too late. He’s either an idiot or a tyrant. Right now it looks like both.

Let’s say President Nasheed did resign under duress. Is it the man who resigns, or is it the government who resigns? If it is the government, then Dr Waheed should be walking out with the President. Then it is the Speaker who takes over for the interim period.

This national unity government should be formed with the Speaker leading it. You can’t have a politician from a party that does not have a single seat in parliament or in a Council, heading a national unity government.

If he would step aside and permit the Speaker to form a national unity government, that would have more credibility. That would also bring this whole situation back into alignment with the constitution.

Right now we seem to be in a gap. We have a man who was put there by the police and military to lead a national unity government. We haven’t seen the public supporters – the so-called people behind him – anywhere. So what national unity government are we talking of here? Just because the cabinet seats a shared across a number of parties, is it a national unity government? No.

I think it is time the Speaker took charge and led a national unity government, and organised elections, and let the people speak again. Just because the international community is upset with Nasheed’s behaviour, doesn’t mean that they should legitimise a government that the people do not support.

We are talking about the government of the Maldives. And that government should be one that the people of the Maldives want and trust.

JJ: There is a lot of public baiting of police officers at the moment. How helpful is this?

AV: Waheed’s first public statement was to praise the police mutineers. How could he?

What happened on February 8 – that peaceful walk – that was absolutely uncalled for. And we haven’t seen anybody talking about it. Not Waheed, nobody. Why was that? What was the reason for such a violent and brutal attack by the police? Why were they picking on certain people? Why did they chase me saying they would kill me? Why?

JJ: The police chased you?

AV: The police, yes. Why did they spray me at close range?

JJ: They pepper sprayed you?

AV: My eyes – I could not open them – it took me 24 hours to clean myself of it. There was a police commander – I was walking in the middle of the crowd. When they chased us I ran with the people. There was this lane – I went in and I think President Nasheed was there. I pulled him by the shirt, then I ran in front and his men came and surrounded him. I passed the shop where he had gone in for cover. Then I came face to face with the police. There was a commander – he screamed out: “That’s the bitch, kill her!”.

Someone stepped in front of me and pepper sprayed me. I grabbed someone running away and said “I’m blinded, they’re going to kill me. Take me, take me.”

Somebody helped me across the street and took me to a safe place.

JJ: Are you concerned for your safety now?

AV: I’m very scared. You have seen their whole approach to my allegations. To deny it – not by arguing over the substance, but by slandering me, and ignoring it. They either slander or ignore.

I’m afraid that considering their approach, they are not going to make a big deal of taking me to court and trying me. They will find other ways of silencing me. It was scary.

This is not about Nasheed or Waheed. It is about the constitution. I really wish the international community would see beyond the obvious. What the opposition is afraid of is separation of powers, and the institutuion of a democracy. It is not Nasheed – Nasheed they can defeat in an election, if they have the people power. But they are afraid of a democratic system where they cannot carry on high level corruption, where they cannot control the judiciary or the independent commissions – and the media. That they fear.

A lot of the younger politicians who have played different roles in covering this up I don’t think are aware of the depth and dirtiness of this coup. It sounds like a conspiracy novel – but it is reality. And people are finding it hard to believe becasue of that.

JJ: To what extent is this about people power? What happens if police or the army are given an order they don’t want to comply with?

AV: I don’t think Waheed is controlling them. We’re seeing [Defence Minister Mohamed] Nazim – Nazim is from the National Security Service (NSS) of before [under Gayoom]. The police and the military were separated in 2005. Nazim is pre-2005. Nazim probably controls the police though [Police Commissioner] Abdulla Riyaz, while he controls the MNDF. Jameel’s role, as Home Minister, is the judiciary. He is the former justice minister. He knows individually all the sitting judges – he wrote the handouts they learned from.

JJ: Do you think people played politics too long with the judiciary – including the MDP side? People are asking why, if this was the issue, Nasheed did not act earlier?

AV: He would know. For one thing I think it was very difficult for him when his own Attorney General [Husnu Suood] was not taking up the matter. Suood was sitting in the JSC with me. But it was only me and Sheikh Shuaib Rahman – the member appointed from among the general public – who went to the ACC.

The Attorney General removed himself from the JSC at the time. I think he realised the politics of it, and took the safe road.

I put myself in danger, taking this up, knowing quite well the politics behind this. But I didn’t feel I had a choice. I was required as an office bearer under oath to work in the interest of the people and the constitution. And my interest in bringing it out to the public was to give them a chance to get their judiciary.

JJ: Will things get worse when the international media and the diplomatic community move on?

AV: Everyone is going about their daily business and to the outside world it looks normal. But the moment they leave, I believe we are in danger.

It is scary – the hatred. These men – the men in action on the 8th – it was their emotions that came out. This was something they carry inside. The hatred. What I fear is that it seems like the police, since their mutiny, can act with impunity. Individual police officers can take up their own greviances against individuals with impunity.

JJ: Do you think the military is in a similar situation?

AV: No, I think the military have largely managed to keep themselves outside the politics. But the leadership of today – which we see has not gone according to rank – is politicised, and part of the conspiracy.

JJ: Have you considered moving somewhere safer?

AV: I don’t see a real solution to this. I think I owe it to people to write this down. I should seriously sit down and write. But it is too heavy at the moment; being amongst events here and the people, fearing for my own safety, I cannot comfortably sit down. But I need to write the story of the silent coup – of how the constitution has been killed without changing a single letter. They have managed to commit high treason under the cover of the constitution.

Today we are in a far more dangerous situation than we were pre-constitution 2008. Then everyone knew it was autocracy, and that all the powers of the state were constitutionally given to one man. Today it is taken at face value that there are separation of powers.

I have policemen bragging on my Facebook page: “We brought down this government. Next time we see you in a rally we are going to kill you.”

Policemen on Facebook. They don’t seem to mind doing it publicly. Before they might have been more subtle – now there seems to be no order at all.

JJ: While the new government is seeking to establish its legitimacy – and the resorts are losing money – do you think there is risk of further crackdowns?

AV: There is no public support for government. And the international community wants to legitimise it. I would like to see Dr Waheed hold a rally, with his 12 parties. Let’s count numbers.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC appeals Civil Court injunction against investigation of Abdulla Mohamed

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has said that all complaints filed against  judges are now being investigated, after it appealed the Civil Court’s injunction preventing the commission from taking action against Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed at the High Court on Tuesday.

Former President’s Member on the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, on Tuesday told Minivan News that if the judicial watchdog “can be overruled by a judge sitting in some court somewhere, then it’s dysfunctional. But that’s what has been happening.”

In a press statement issued this week, JSC – which is mandated to appoint and investigate complaints against judges – refuted allegations that it was defunct, claiming it has been “working hard” to finish investigating complaints submitted to the commission.

Out of the 336 complaints submitted so far, 208 have been completed and 38 cases under investigation, the JSC claimed, while commission is working to finish the 128 complaints remaining. Investigation committees had been set up within the commission to “expedite the process”, JSC claims, adding that complaints concerned different judges, not only Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

The statement comes despite the JSC’s abolishing its complaints committee in May 2011. It did not clarify the outcome of any of the complaints it said it had investigated.

The JSC explained in the statement that the commission has been unable to pursue the case against Chief Judge as the Civil Court had ordered the JSC on November 17 to take no action against the judge until the court reached a verdict in the case filed against him.

The JSC requested the High Court to terminate the injunction citing that the commission’s decision cannot be overruled by the civil court.

Abdulla Mohamed filed the suit against the JSC after it completed a report into misconduct allegations against the cheif judge. According to the report, which the JSC has not yet publicly released, the judge violated the Judge’s Code of Conduct by making a politically biased statement in an interview he gave to private broadcaster DhiTV.

The injunction was first appealed by the JSC at the Supreme Court, which ordered it to be submitted to the High court on January 19 – three days after chief judge was detained by the military, after he had opened the court outside normal hours a night ago, to order the immmmediate release of Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, deputy leader of the minority opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) who was arrested after President’s Office requested an investigation into “slanderous” allegations he made that the government was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives.

In this week’s statement JSC reiterates its stance that neither police or Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) have the “constitutional authority” to detain a judge, citing that the commission reserves the right to investigate complaints about judges and submit to the parliament in case a judge has to be removed from the bench under the section 159 of the constitution and Judicial Service Commission Act.

However, the government continues to legally justify the military detention of the judge amid spiralling political tensions.

In a televised statement on MNBC One on Junary 17, Home Minister Hassan Afeef said military assistance was sought for “fear of loss of public order and safety and national security” on account of Judge Abdulla, who has “taken the entire criminal justice system in his fist”.

Afeef listed 14 cases of obstruction of police duty by Judge Abdulla, including withholding warrants for up to four days, ordering police to conduct unlawful investigations and disregarding decisions by higher courts.

Afeef accused the judge of “deliberately” holding up cases involving opposition figures, and barring media from corruption trials.

Afeef said the judge also ordered the release of suspects detained for serious crimes “without a single hearing”, and maintained “suspicious ties” with family members of convicts sentenced for dangerous crimes.

The judge also released a murder suspect “in the name of holding ministers accountable”, who went on to kill another victim.

Afeef also alleged that the judge actively undermined cases against drug trafficking suspects and had allowed them opportunity to “fabricate false evidence after hearings had concluded”.

Judge Abdulla “hijacked the whole court” by deciding that he alone could issue search warrants, Afeef continued, and has arbitrarily suspended court officers.

The chief judge “twisted and interpreted laws so they could not be enforced against certain politicians” and stood accused of “accepting bribes to release convicts.”

However, opposition continues to contend that the judge’s “abduction” by the military and its refusal to release him or present him in court, despite being ordered to do so by the Supreme Court, represents a constitutional violation by the government.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Political tensions flare amid constitutional crisis over judiciary

Male’ is bracing for further protests after a weekend of violent demonstrations involving several hundred opposition supporters, as political tensions spiral over the military’s detention of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed.

Eight opposition-aligned political parties held a joint press conference on Thursday afternoon calling on the public to join their series of protests “to defend the Maldivian constitution” and “bring the government back into legal bounds”.

Police said in a statement that five officers were “seriously injured” in protests that evening after opposition supporters in front of the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) building attempted to break through the police blockade.

A number of other police officers sustained minor injuries while a window of the MMA building was smashed and three police vehicles, one MNDF vehicle and the car of Civil Service Commission (CSC) head Mohamed Fahmy Hassan were damaged.

Opposition protesters also broke into the home of Youth Minister Hassan Latheef and vandalised his living room, while his wife and children were in the house. The homes of other ministers were also vandalised from the outside, and palm trees lining the main roads of Male’ were uprooted.

The Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC) claimed that six of its reporters were attacked on Thursday evening by the opposition protesters, including a cameraman who had paving stones and oil thrown at him, and a camera woman who had an unknown substance sprayed in her eyes as demonstrators attempted to take her video camera.

A group of male demonstrators also reportedly surrounded a female MNBC journalist and threatened to kill her and dump her body into the sea, before she was rescued by other reporters in the area.

Protesters also attempted to gather outside the MNBC premises and threw rocks and other objects at the walls.

Police arrested 43 people over the weekend, including former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Mahlouf, Adhaalath Party President Imran Abdulla, and spokesperson for the coalition of NGOs campaigning against the government’s religious policy, Abdulla Mohamed.

Charges included disrupting peace, damaging public and private property, including youth minister’s residence, breaking police lines, and inciting violence.

The Criminal Court today however ruled the arrests were unlawful and ordered the release of all those arrested.

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) meanwhile called on the protesters to be mindful of the rights of others and to exercise their right to free assembly responsibly.

The commission observed that as a result of the manner of speech heard at such protests, “inducing anger, hatred and fear in people’s hearts”, public order and peace was “being very adversely affected.”

“As a consequence of such actions, the country’s social fabric is weakened and the trust and respect we should have towards one another are lost, forming numerous obstacles to establishing an environment that fully guarantees rights,” the commission said.

Hundreds of supporters of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) meanwhile gathered at a heated rally near the tsunami monument on Saturday afternoon. The ruling party launched a campaign earlier this month dubbed “You can’t say that anymore” against the opposition’s “use of religion as a weapon for political purposes.”

Today’s rally at the tsunami memorial area was part of the campaign, which has seen eight rallies held at the party’s Haruge headquarters in past weeks.

Detained Judge

Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed is at the centre of the constitutional impasse currently being played out in the Maldives. The opposition contends that the judge’s “abduction” by the military last week and its refusal to release him or present him in court, despite being ordered to do so by the Supreme Court, represents a constitutional violation by the government.

The government – and former whistleblower on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Aishath Velezinee – present Abdulla Mohamed as the corrupt heart of a “silent coup” by the former government to assume control of the judicary, “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” and ensuring legal impunity for key opposition figures.

Presented with a litany of allegations against the judge, the JSC, as the watchdog body charged with overseeing the judiciary, formed a complaints committee to investigate the cases against the judge in December 2009.

However in November 2011 the Civil Court ordered the judicial watchdog to take no action against Abdulla Mohamed, despite a report by the JSC claiming that he had violated the Judge’s Code of Conduct by making  statements favouring the opposition in an interview he gave to private broadcaster DhiTV.

The government’s decision to take action against the judge followed his opening of the court outside normal hours, to order the immediate release of Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, deputy leader of the minority opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP).

Police had attempted to arrested two senior members of the party on charges of slander and hate speech after they published a pamphlet alleging, among other claims, that the government was plotting with “Jews and Christian priests” to undermine Islam in the Maldives.

The Chief Judge was first summoned by police for questioning on January 16, but did not appear.

Instead, he filed a case at the High Court requesting the summons be cancelled on the grounds that it was illegal. The High Court then issued an injunction ordering police to halt enforcement of the summons pending a ruling.

Police subsequently requested the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) take Abdulla Mohamed into custody, as “the Criminal Court was not cooperating with police and that as a consequence of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed obstructing police work, the country’s internal security was threatened and police were unable to maintain public order and safety.”

The judge was taken to the MNDF training island of Girifushi, where he currently remains.

“In good health”

HRCM in an “emergency” press conference yesterday stated that it had visited the judge and that he was in good health and being well treated, with the ability to freely roam the island. He had been granted, but had refused, access to his family, HRCM said.

In response to HRCM’s comments, the opposition accused the human rights body of “backing down” from its responsibilities. Deputy Leader of the Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP), Ibrahim Shareef, attacked the statement as “tame” and “mellow”, claiming that the “kidnapping” of the judge was inhumane.

Reaction

The detention of the Chief Judge has polarised Maldivian society – and the government – even amid the country’s already intense political divide.

In an especially dramatic tangent, Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan declared on his blog that he was “ashamed and totally devastated by the fact that this is happening in a government in which I am the elected the Vice President.”

“Besides all the international legal obligations, the government of the Maldives is bound by the Maldives Constitution 1988 which prohibits arbitrary arrest and forced disappearance. We have just witnessed the first possible violation since the dawn of democracy in our country. I cannot understand why this is not an issue for everyone in this country,” Dr Waheed said.

“Those of us who have struggled for freedom in this country for over 30 years, are wondering whether we have wasted our efforts.”

The European Union Heads of Mission issued a statement expressing “concern at recent developments in [the Maldives], including the arrest of a criminal court judge by members of the security forces.”

“EU Heads of Mission reiterate their support for the process of democratic transition in the Maldives and note the importance of the principles underlying that transition, including respect for the constitution, due process, independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and freedom of expression are central to this process,” the statement read.

“EU Heads of Mission call on all parties in the Maldives to act in accordance with these principles and to refrain from inflammatory language or other action which could incite hatred.”

Secretary General of SAARC, Diyana Saeed, the youngest person and first woman to be appointed to the post, today confirmed her resignation following her public criticism of the executive’s refusal to obey the Supreme Court order to release the judge, during a press conference on VTV.

“[The Chief Judge’s detention] is a violation of individual human rights, a violation of the independence of the judiciary, and the violation of the constitution,” she told Minivan News on Thursday.

The government’s ignoring of a Supreme Court order is not without precedent in the Maldives.

Prior to the appointment of the new Supreme Court in August 2010 on conclusion of the constitution’s interim period, the existing bench sent a letter to the President declaring themselves permanent.

The letter was ignored, and the MNDF confiscated the keys to the Supreme Court until the new bench was eventually appointed by parliament – a process of intense and rapid backroom political compromise that was at the time hailed as a rare cross-party success for the institution.

Breaking the impasse

A government legal source told Minivan News that the JSC itself had found evidence of “gross misconduct” by Abdulla Mohamed, but was blocked from proceeding on the matter as the chief judge “has undue influence over at least one other judge of the Civil Court who issued a court order against the JSC and prevented it from performing its constitutional role.”

“The allegations levelled against him are of serious concern to the Maldivian government and community. It is apparent that both the Maldivian High Court and the Supreme Court remained silent on the matter,” the source stated.

“This is tacit acceptance of a ploy to prevent the JSC from exercising its powers under the constitution, and the JSC’s acceptance of the Civil Court order is an indication of the extent of undue influence that members of the judiciary have over the JSC.”

The government was, the source said, “taking appropriate action in extraordinary circumstances involving allegations of serious corruption and gross misconduct by a senior judge. Public statements seeking to define his detention as a human rights issue are part of the web of protection which surrounds Judge Abdulla Mohamed.”

Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed told Minivan News that the arrest of the judge could legally only have been ordered by the High Court.

“We have the security of the constitution, but while the print may be there it is evident that it doesn’t matter very much. If I am going to be arrested I deserve to expect certain rights. The arrest of Judge Mohamed should have been made on the order of the High Court,” he said.

He noted that Parliament had a standing committee, which had in turn formed a sub-committee, to investigate the JSC.

The hearings and interviews have been concluded at the sub-committee level said Nasheed, a member of that sub-committee and chair of the Independent Institutions Committee, and the information was to be compiled into a report and forwarded to the full committee.

“It’s possible we will have the investigation addressed within the first session of parliament this year,” Nasheed said.

He said the sub-committee had considered a reformation of the JSC.

“It’s the one institution that has not really taken off. It’s been bogged down with personality issues and procedural issues. Bring in a change of membership, some new blood, and give it a new chance,” he speculated, although adding that this would require bodies such as the Supreme Court to each revoke their own representatives on the commission.

The constitution also includes provision for the appointment of foreign judges from other Islamic countries, he noted.

Foreign judges may sit on court benches during the first 15 years of the constitution “only because we would like some technical assistance and expertise during the transition. This provision is the only area in which Maldivian citizenship is not required of a judge,” Nasheed said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Velezinee appointed Deputy Home Minister

President Mohamed Nasheed has appointed his former member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Aishath Velezinee, to the position of Deputy Home Minister.

As a member of the JSC, Velezinee was an outspoken whistle-blower who campaigned against the reappointment of sitting judges in what she contended was a violation of article 285 of the Constitution and part of a “silent coup” to seize control of the judiciary.

In early 2010, she set about publicly exposing the independent institution she claimed was operating “like a secret society” and serving as a “shield” for a judiciary that was “independent in name only”, and had tabled only several of the hundreds of complaints submitted against judges.

Using her access to court documents, Velezinee revealed that almost a quarter of the sitting judges had criminal records – ranging from theft to terrorism – and that an even greater number had not even completed grade 7 education. The only qualification of many was a ‘Diploma in Judging’ presenting to them by the former Ministry of Justice, Velezinee contested.

For the past 30 years judges effectively worked as the employees of those “hand-picked” by the former government, Velezinee explained – to the extent that failures to extend a particular ruling as required by the Ministry of Justice resulted in a black mark on the judge’s file.

“The only qualification it appears was a willingness to submit to the will of the government at the time – to follow orders,” Velezinee told Minivan News in a previous interview.

“Not everyone has the mindset to follow orders and serve in that kind of capacity. I believe it has excluded people with independent thinking, or the necessary legal knowledge – such people would take it as an insult for someone to order them how to decide a case.”

She also presented documents and recordings that implied the JSC had forged documents for a hearing over High Court appointments, accused the commission of embezzling state funds by awarding itself a ‘committee allowance’ contrary to Article 164 of the Constitution, and criticised it for abolishing its Complaints Committee in the name of “efficiency”. The previous year the JSC received 143 complaints concerning the conduct of judges, none of which were even tabled at the commission.

In January this year Velezinee was hospitalised after she was stabbed three times in the back in broad daylight on the main tourist street of Male’, “right outside the Home Minister’s door.”

Many international organisations, including Transparency International and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), at the time expressed “grave concern that the attack may be politically motivated.”

Velezinee told Minivan News today that her new role at the Home Ministry will see her focusing on “international affairs and projects in planning and development, and monitoring of agencies.”

“Many international conventions were signed in 2005 but were not incorporated into the domestic system,” she noted. “The Home Ministry should be a very strong Ministry, as it has a huge mandate, and should ensure it complies with the conventions the Maldives has signed.”

The remit of the Home Ministry includes police and the Department of Penitentiary and Rehabilitation Services (DPRS), as well as juvenile justice, civil society and decentralisation.

Velezinee speculated that one of the reasons she may have been offered the role was because of her focus on justice, as “the Home Ministry is very much concerned with justice and the rule of law.”

She expressed surprise and delight at the welcome she received from her team at the Ministry, observing that it was “completely unlike the experience of the JSC where I felt I was unwanted the entire time.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail

Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail is a Maldivian statesman and former chairman of the Special Majlis Drafting Committee responsible for the new Constitution. He remains one of the country’s key authorities on the subject.

He was recently reprimanded by both the Supreme Court and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) for calling on the public to “rise up and sort out the judges”. He responded by attempting to file a defamation case against the Supreme Court.

JJ Robinson: This defamation case sprang from your recent comment calling on citizens to stand up and sort out the judiciary. What did you mean by that?

Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail: Basically what I meant is that the institutions that are supposed to keep the judiciary in check have been compromised too much, and they are not in a position to bring the judiciary to account. So when institutions fail in a democracy, solutions have to be found by the people.

This is what happened with [former President Maumoon Abdul] Gayoom. All the institutions that were in place failed to bring him to account. So eventually people had to come out and work really hard to bring him back into the folds of the law.

It’s a similar thing [with the judiciary] – the JSC has the prime responsibility of holding the judiciary in check, and failing them, the Majlis (parliament) has to do it. None of these institutions are acting on it.

No one wants to talk about it, and it’s very convenient for people to forget that the judiciary is making all this mischief. So the public has to remind these people that everything is not hunky dory, and they are making a lot of mischief, and the public is concerned about it.

JJ: So you’re talking about street protests?

II: Part of it involves street protests. But protests will only come when all else fails. Before street protests people have to stand up and act, lobby their MPs, write petitions, speak out, voice their concerns, have public debates. And if all these don’t get politicians moving, we’ll have to take to the streets – if necessary.

JJ: In response to your calls, the Supreme Court all but accused you of treason, stating that “making such statements in a free, democratic society under lawful governance goes against the principles of civilisation”, and demanded authorities investigate you. What did you make of the JSC’s – and the Supreme Court’s – response to your comment?

II: Very knee-jerk. I think the reaction from the Supreme Court and the JSC is an admission of guilt on their part. Because if they were doing things properly, and if they weren’t doing things they did not have to answer for, then they would not have this one person coming out and saying this. They would not have to worry about there being a bad reaction from the public. For me their response was tantamount to an admission of guilt on their part.

JJ: The JSC said it would request the authorities launch an investigation into your alleged treason. How many policemen have come to your door?

II: None. And I have begged police to take me in for investigation and conduct the investigation. I’ve even said to them that Supreme Court has ruled and passed judgement on me for treason. So why am I allowed to roam the streets? I should be behind bars. But they are not acting on it.

JJ: There seems to be quite a difference between theory and practice when it comes to the law here. Is this something you have observed?

II: Very much so. Ever since the adoption of the constitution. That is something I have been speaking out about.

JJ: When independent, outside groups such as the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) visit the Maldives and criticise groups such as the JSC, they respond by simply pointing at the Constitution and insist “the Constitution says we are an independent institution”. Is this denial?

II: Maybe it’s a kind of denial, but what you have to remember is that adoption of a Constitution doesn’t change mentalities and culture overnight. A lot of work has to be put in to put that Constitution into practice, and I think that everyone has become very complacent about the implementation of the Constitution.

There is an assumption that “now we have the Constitution, that is how things should be”. But firstly, many people – including state officials, across different levels in all branches of government – are not really aware of what’s in the Constitution.

Most of them have not witnessed a democracy in practice. So what they are doing is interpreting the Constitution from their perspective, and what they are familiar with, unfortunately, is very undemocratic, and goes against the grain of the Constitution.

It’s a continuation of culture, with the new arrangements. This is what we are seeing, and I’m concerned that if we don’t act early too many precedents will be set and it will be difficult to turn it back again. Now is the time to act, and set it right – put it back on track.

JJ: You mentioned earlier that the judiciary had been compromised. What did you mean?

II: It’s compromised in all aspects. The first compromise was the enactment of the Courts Act and the Judges Act by parliament. Particularly the Courts Act, which was totally against what was conceived in the Constitution.

Then came the appointment of judges, particularly the Supreme Court judges.

JJ: That was hailed as a victory of compromise by all the major parties.

II: Yes, but even as it was happening I was fighting against it whatever way I could. The only avenue left to me was to speak out – which I did. I don’t believe appointments to the Supreme Court should be made through political deals.

Any appointment to the Supreme Court has to be scrutinised, both by Parliament, the executive, even the public. Judges should be beyond reproach. They can’t have baggage behind them.

Those were the compromises. Once the initial setting up of the judiciary and the key appointments were compromised, the rest would automatically follow. Their judgements are going to be compromised, their actions are going to be compromised – so that is why I said I believe the judiciary has been compromised. I blame the politicians for it – they failed the country when they did that.

The first instance of the Supreme Court’s move came while I was still in parliament in 2008, immediately after the elections were over. The Supreme Court moved a motion on itself, by itself, and ruled in their favour, to move the department of judicial administration from the purview of the JSC to the Supreme Court.

That was move number one. That very day, within hours, I was jumping up in parliament and saying “this is dangerous” – that these people have to be put in check immediately.

The entire Supreme Court was summoned to parliament – none of them turned up. We gave them the due respect that Justices of the Supreme Court deserved. We sent them a letter saying that the oversight committee would like to meet you to discuss some issues within the judiciary, so please tell us a convenient time to meet you.

They never bothered to reply. And the Speaker of Parliament took no further action on it.

For me it wasn’t just the ruling they had brought out that was a problem – it was the manner in which they were moving. I could see there would be more to come.

What we did in the 2009 budget was to put in an amendment moving the entire budget of the judicial administration to the JSC – and the Majlis passed it. So in effect, parliament was showing its displeasure, in a nice way. Saying: “You can make those rulings, but we hold the purse strings.”

But still they carried on.

JJ: And then the Supreme Court sent the President a letter ruling they were reappointing themselves for life, and no need to worry about the transition period? What did that signal?

II: The same thing. That was the next move. They were establishing that the Supreme Court was a supreme body in the country and whatever they say, goes.

That particular letter was composed saying they were going to be the Supreme Court, and neither the Majlis nor the President had any choice in the matter.

All these things signaled the same thing. First they wanted to hijack the judiciary – and through the judiciary they wanted to hijack the nation.

JJ: Who is ‘they’?

II: At that time it was the then Chief Justice – he appointed himself Chief Justice, by the way, because in the interim period there was no provision for a chief justice – and he was acting like that, leading. And then there was Mujitaz Fahmy, these were the people. Eventually when the appointments came, and the way it came, you could see, DRP had majority in parliament at the time, and by and large the People’s Alliance (PA) through their coalition was calling the shots.

JJ: Didn’t the Speaker of Parliament show up in the JSC office during the interim period to help photocopy letters of appointment?

II: Exactly. The Supreme Court and key elements within the judiciary are still controlled by Gayoom – directly or indirectly.

JJ: What does that mean for the provision of justice in the Maldives?

II: We can be guaranteed we won’t have justice. You can see these things going on – look at what the Supreme Court is doing.

Face facts – they are issuing instructions to the trial courts, saying “Case X, stop proceedings, we’ll take that over.”

Who ever heard of an appellate court taking over a trial court’s jurisdiction? I don’t know of any instance in any democratic country, anywhere in the world, where an appellate court will take over a trial court.

Even in cases of a mistrial, the instruction is to retry the case. Appellate courts don’t sit on trials. And they are systematically doing it – at least three cases so far.

What they are effectively doing is influencing the independence of the trial court. The significance of that is that if trial court judges cannot be independent of the higher court, there is no room for appeals. Because the decision is going to be the Supreme Court decision.

JJ: What has the role of the JSC been in all of this?

II: The JSC has been hijacked by these runaway judges, and they are serving their own interests in protecting the judges. This is one point where I disagree with the ICJ’s report.

JJ: The ICJ noted that it was a less-than-ideal structural oddity in the Constitution to have outside representation on the JSC?

II: They believe that the JSC should comprise of judges. I regret now putting even one judge on the JSC when writing the Constitution.

The ICJ’s caveat is very different from the ground reality here. In Britain and the US there are mature systems, and no politician in their right mind would even contemplate trying to influence court decisions – at least not publicly. Judges in the UK or the States, and most mature democracies, have come through a long history of democracy, worked as lawyers for a number of years, been scrutinised for their work and general behaviour – not just anyone can sit on the bench. But here in the Maldives we have a bunch of idiots.

What you see happening in the JSC is judges protecting their own backs.

JJ: The former President’s Member on the JSC, Aishath Velezinee, has previously stated that a majority of sitting judges have not completed primary school, while 25 percent have actual criminal records.

II: There are three judges on the JSC. And then you have a lawyer, who was elected by the lawyers – but the high court ruled at the time that a magistrate should be allowed to vote in the election of a lawyer to the JSC. So they elected this lawyer, whose wife was a magistrate.

Mujitaz Fahmy was heading the JSC at the time, he made arrangements for his wife to have her rent paid, to move to Hulhumale’ from an island court, and all this – and later even created a court in Hulhumale’ for her. So can this lawyer even hold the judges to account?

Then you have Abdulla Shahid, from the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP). Do you know the DRP leader and his cronies – MPs – have a Rf 1 billion (US$64.8 million) case suspended in the High Court, after the trial court ruled the bank could move in to take over the mortgages?

The trial court asked them to pay up, and all three or four of them would have had to declare bankruptcy and lost their parliament seats.

JJ: You are talking about Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and loans with the Bank of Maldives?

II: I have to be careful here or I could end up with a libel suit – it’s not Thasmeen now. Initially the loan was taken by companies in his name, his shareholdings. But during the Presidential election he was the running mate for Gayoom, so he transferred it to other people, and these people – the shareholders – are now MPs.

The Constitution says that if you are declared bankrupt, you will lose your seat. After the trial court ruled, they took it to the High Court, and it has been sitting there for a year and a half. The High Court has issued a court order suspending the trial court decision until the High Court sorts in out.

We all know that in an open and shut case like a bank loan there is nothing more to prove. Either you are paying it or you are not. I mean how many ordinary poor people have spent time in jail because they weren’t able to pay credit cards for personal expenses?

Under the same laws, the same court system, these people with Rf 1 billion in public money, are getting away with it. So no wonder a DRP-controlled Majlis, the Speaker, and Dr Afrashim Ali, will side with the judges. This is what I mean when I say they have been compromised.

JJ: So it all comes back to that Rf 1 billion?

II: Part of it. Look at [Deputy Speaker] Ahmed Nazim. He has a case currently against him that could put him away for a few years. Abdulla Hameed is a fugitive from justice. All these people from the old regime are fugitives from justice, so they depend on the judges to protect them.

Why was Nazim’s hearing behind closed doors? The public wasn’t allowed in, the journalists weren’t allowed in, which is against the Constitution. The Constitution spells it out that trials have to be open, unless a judge declares it a closed hearing to protect the interests of a victim in a case involving child abuse, or a rape, or a matter of national security. These are the only instances where a judge can declare a closed hearing.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that all these things involve ex-regime people.

JJ: So how right is Velezinee when she talks about the “silent coup”?

II: One hundred percent.

JJ: What do you think of Velezinee’s whistle-blowing role in this?

II: I think it was admirable what she did. But what she couldn’t do was garner the support for the cause.

JJ: Are people still intimidated by the Supreme Court to a degree that they feel they are unable to criticise it?

II: Intimidated yes, but there is also a hegemony amongst people. They think that courts can’t be criticised, that they shouldn’t be touched. Many think that if you say something against the Supreme Court they can summon you the next day and sentence you to jail. People don’t know what the limitations of power are. They see the courts as places that put people in jail – they’ve seen this happen all the time. They’ve seen wrongful convictions, and they know it’s the same judges and the same courts.

It takes someone like me to point this out. Part of my making this case against the Supreme Court is to convince the public that you can criticise the Supreme Court and remain a free man.

JJ: If this becomes a defamation case they can’t rule against you – because that supports your point – and they can’t rule in your favour, because that would place themselves in contempt of court. So what’s to stop there simply never being a hearing?

II: That’s a tricky point. I will see if the Civil Court will accept the case. I want to give the Civil Court the benefit of the doubt, until they reject it. Even if they reject it, I’ll take that to the High Court, and if they reject it, I’ll take it to the Supreme Court, and let them try themselves. (Note: the Civil Court subsequently rejected Ibra’s case).

JJ: What puts you in a position of being able to do this when many other people would not?

II: One thing is that I believe my knowledge of the Constitution tells me what they can and can’t do, which most people don’t know. Other than that, maybe because over the years and during the reform movement, I like to believe I have some standing in the public, because the majority of the public has faith in me for standing up for the truth. So that gives me courage.

But the bottom line is the same as when I stood up against Gayoom – someone has to do it. I waited for three years for someone else to do it this time, no one was forthcoming, so I figured “OK, here goes Ibra again.” Let’s give it a shot.

JJ: What kind of recourse do ordinary people have at the end of the day? You say people can go to their MP, but that engagement is not always in a democratically healthy manner given that most MPs readily admit to funding their constituents’ personal demands for money, education and overseas healthcare.

II: I think, with this recent fiasco in the Majlis regarding the committee allowances, parliament is on the back foot. They might try and please the public, if the public demands hard enough.

JJ: What is the impact on foreign investment of having a judiciary in this state? From the perspective of somebody investing in tourism if, say, I need to enforce a contract but I can’t go to the Civil Court with some guarantee of getting a fair ruling, what’s to stop somebody from just pulling my investment out from under me?

II: That’s happening already. Many potential investors are looking at the legal system here and deciding they do not want to take the risks.

JJ: Are people aware of this? Surely big businesses here are worried about this?

II: The big businesses already here are not worried, because they have the judges in their pocket. [Resort tycoon and Jumhoree Party MP] Gasim Ibrahim is now sitting on the JSC, and even as we speak he has seven cases in the courts.

JJ: The Constitution includes provisions for foreign judges, and the idea of a mercantile court has already been raised – an ‘offshore’ legal jurisdiction with authority in civil cases over a certain value?

II: I don’t think that’s a way out. It may serve a temporary purpose, but I think the real way out is to rewrite the Courts Act and appoint at least two foreign judges to the Supreme Court.

I was advocating this right from the start. I begged the President to at least nominate two foreign judges – retired or semi-retired people with experience – to come and assist us in setting up a Supreme Court and set the right precedents. But the politics got caught up.

I foresaw this even when we were writing the Constitution. On more than one occasion I said the next challenge would be the judiciary. The DRP wanted to write into the Constitution a stipulation that all judges should be Maldivian, but I fought single-handedly against it. Because that kind of nationalistic sentiment goes down very well with the public, because of the fear factor, the xenophobia and mistrust of foreigners which was actively promoted at the time.

The way is still open for foreign judges, and there is provision there for term appointments.

JJ: What is your overall prognosis? Optimistic or are you packing your suitcase?

II: I don’t know how long this will take. A short while, or longer than we think. But eventually, no society can sustain itself without justice. It is a fundamental feature a society requires to live in harmony.

The way justice manifests itself may not be readily seen or tangible, but people know when injustice is being done. And that is why people stood up against Gayoom – because of the injustices.

I’m optimistic that there will come a point – sooner or later – when people will just not tolerate it. But then it will be ugly. If we do it now it will not be ugly, with the least possible jolt to the system. I just hope the politicians – our parliamentarians – will have the wisdom to see that this is not a political issue, not something for personal gain. They should see this as serving the wider national interest and safety of all, including themselves. To get the judiciary on track.

For the bull to survive, it must ensure that the wider landscape in which it lives also survives. The judiciary is that wider landscape. You never know when you are going to end up in court, and on that day you should have confidence in the judge passing judgement over you.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Is the President serious about reforming the judiciary?

Has Anni given up the fight for an independent judiciary?

“We will reform the JSC”, President Nasheed said in May.

“When the powers were separated and the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) became the executive we came into a situation where the previous regime had a majority in the parliament.

“But in many minds the situation with the judiciary was far more worrying. Nothing had changed – we had exactly the same people, the same judges, the same manner of thinking and of dispensing justice.”

On Wednesday he appointed as his member at the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) Kurendhoo Hussein Ibrahim, a man who first came to public attention during the drafting of the 2008 Constitution as someone vigorously apposed to gender equality.

As a member of the Special Majlis, Hussein Ibrahim was vociferously opposed to the appointment of women as judges, and was particularly vitriolic in his comments against changing the Constitution to allow women to run for office of the President.

“He was very clear about where women should be in society – in a place where they have no say in the running of public affairs,” a senior member of the law community, who wishes to remain anonymous, told Minivan News.

“To be honest, I am very surprised that the President would appoint such an individual as Velezinee’s replacement,” he said.

Aishath Velezinee was the President’s Member at the JSC until 19 May this year, when she was unceremoniously removed from the position. Although there were unconfirmed reports, including in this newspaper, about a backroom deal that made her removal politically advantageous for MDP, neither President Nasheed nor Velezinee have so far spoken publicly about the reasons for her removal.

Hussein Ibrahim’s views are diametrically opposed not just to Velezinee’s, but also that of a President who frequently espouses his commitment to the democratic ideal of equality and non-discrimination.

The President’s Press Secretary, Mohamed Zuhair, said Hussein Ibrahim might have distanced himself from such hard-line views since he sat on the Special Majlis for redrafting the Constitution.

“It is quite possible that he has changed,” Zuhair said. Pressed on the question of whether he knew this for a fact, Zuhair said, “We believe that in accepting the position as the President’s Member, he is entering into a ‘social pact’.”

“It is our hope”, Zuhair said, “that he will work towards the realisation of the President’s goals and to further his views in his new job.”

Even if Hussein Ibrahim, seemingly appointed on a wing and prayer, does show himself capable of leaving behind his misogyny, there is still the question of his professional ability to push a reform agenda.

A misogynist with a sentencing certificate

Hussein Ibrahim has no formal qualifications and is one of the many ‘lawyers’ allowed to sit on the bench on the basis of a Sentencing Certificate – a legacy of the Gayoom era. Having served as a magistrate in two different lower courts, he later did a stint as an ‘Islam Soa’ at Aminiya School.

In other words, he is a member of the very same brigade of “exactly the same people, the same judges, the same manner of thinking and of dispensing justice” President Nasheed said he wanted removed from the judiciary.

Removing unqualified judges was a Constitutional requirement, stipulated by Article 285. Put in charge of carrying out the task, however, the JSC dismissed Article 285 as “symbolic” and allowed all but a handful of the unqualified judges to remain in the judiciary. The President has now appointed just such a man to represent him at the JSC.

Hussein Ibrahim’s presence at the JSC means that female members of the judiciary, few in number but who as a group represent the most qualified judges in the country, now have another man overseeing them who not only thinks they are biologically and intellectually inferior to him, but also knows less about the law than they do.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), which in February this year published a highly critical report on the JSC, pointed to members’ lack of technical ability and knowledge as one reason for its inability to do its job of ensuring the judiciary’s ethical and professional standards.

Citing ‘administrative efficiency’, as the reason, the JSC abolished the Complaints Committee in May this year. It was the mechanism by which the JSC was to have investigated complaints against the judiciary.

The JSC’s 2010 annual report shows there are over 200 complaints – some involving judges at the country’s highest courts – that are yet to be investigated. Any attempts to force the JSC to investigate complaints using the courts system have so far been unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, any criticism of the judiciary is becoming increasingly difficult as the courts gag the media, or issue threats against those who speak against its actions – even when they are clearly unconstitutional.

Recent examples include the Criminal Court’s decision to ban the media from Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim’s alleged corruption hearings and the Supreme Court’s reprimanding of President’s Advisor Ibrahim Ismail (Ibra) for urging the public to fight for their right to an independent judiciary.

What is even more shocking is that the JSC convened an emergency meeting to discuss Ibra’s remarks where members agreed to ask ‘relevant authorities’ to investigate Ibra.

The JSC is constitutionally mandated to investigate complaints against the judiciary made by members of the public. It has no authority to investigate complaints against members of the public made by the judiciary.

Clearly the JSC needs someone who, at the very least, knows what its own role is.

As seen in the case of Velezinee, who was stabbed in the back in January this year, fighting for judicial reform is one of the most dangerous jobs in the country.

Hussein Ibrahim is a religious conservative who thinks women should be covered up and chained to the kitchen sink when they are not occupied with the holy task of breeding. He has no record of pushing a democratic agenda, and has no formal qualifications in any profession. It is hard to imagine him taking on the JSC let alone the judiciary.

Which begs the question: is President Nasheed serious about reforming the judiciary?

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Courageous and exemplary work”: President dismisses JSC Velezinee

President Mohamed Nasheed has removed the President’s member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), Aishath Velezinee, from her post.

“There was no reason given. All I can say is that the President is extremely grateful for the courageous and exemplary work Velezinee has done,” said Nasheed’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair, adding that a new member would soon be appointed.

Minivan News understands that Velezinee’s departure from the JSC may be part of a back room deal not unrelated to impending judicial reform, opposition MPs crossing the floor and the arrest of former government officials on allegations of torture.

Velezinee herself was not commenting on the decision.

One woman army

Velezinee became an outspoken whistle-blower on the JSC last year after claiming that her many letters of concern to parliament – which provides oversight on the independent commissions – were being ignored.

In early 2010, she set about publicly exposing the independent institution she claimed was operating “like a secret society” and serving as a “shield” for a judiciary that was “independent in name only”, and had tabled only several of the hundreds of complaints submitted against judges.

Using her access to court documents, Velezinee revealed that almost a quarter of the sitting judges had criminal records – ranging from theft to terrorism – and that an even greater number had not even completed grade 7 education. The only qualification of many was a ‘Diploma in Judging’ presenting to them by the former Ministry of Justice, Velezinee contested.

For the past 30 years judges effectively worked as the employees of those “hand-picked” by the former government, Velezinee explained – to the extent that failures to extend a particular ruling as required by the Ministry of Justice resulted in a black mark on the judge’s file.

“The only qualification it appears was a willingness to submit to the will of the government at the time – to follow orders,” Velezinee told Minivan News is a previous interview.

“Not everyone has the mindset to follow orders and serve in that kind of capacity. I believe it has excluded people with independent thinking, or the necessary legal knowledge – such people would take it as an insult for someone to order them how to decide a case.”

Velezinee’s concerns – met with noticeable silence from both the JSC and the then-opposition majority parliament – sparked her ‘Article 285’ campaign.

Article 285 was the Constitutional stipulation that the JSC determine before the conclusion of the interim period – August 7, 2010 – whether or not the judges on the bench possessed the characteristics specified by article 149: “the educational qualifications, experience and recognized competence necessary to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a judge, [and] high moral character”.

At the eleventh hour prior to the conclusion of the interim period, the JSC reappointed the vast majority of sitting judges for life in a surrepticious ceremony conducted behind doors that would have remained closed had Velezinee not rushed the podium.

“The JSC decided – I believe with the support of parliament – that the same bench will remain for the next 40 years, retitled as an ‘independent judiciary’,” Velezinee said following the reappointments.

She further alleged that senior members of the parliamentary opposition were present in the JSC office over the weekend prior to the interim period deadline, personally assisting the JSC secretariat with photocopying the letters of appointment.

“I’m telling you: this is big. What we are seeing is all interconnected – it is one big plot to try – in any way possible – to return power to the corrupt,” she told Minivan News in July 2010, noting that her concerns had led to her being labelled “the Article 285 madwoman” by not only the opposition.

Less than a year later, many of her allegations were independently corroborated by a report produced by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), which attended JSC sessions and criticised its independence.

The JSC, the report stated, “was unable to carry out its functions in a sufficiently transparent, timely, and impartial manner. To date, JSC decision-making has been perceived as being inappropriately influenced by a polarised political environment. Also troubling is that members of the judiciary have been subject to threats and intimidation as well as improper inducements by both governing and opposition party members.”

The JSC refused to table the ICJ’s report, and disputed having ever received it.

Towards the end of 2010 Velezinee upped her campaign to incorporate parliament, naming both opposition and independent MPs as being involved in what she described as “a silent coup” to deprive the country of an independent judiciary for the sake of providing continued judicial impunity to senior power brokers of the former administration.

The reason for that failure, she suggested, was a fear among leaders of the former administration “who are continuing with criminal activities they have allegedly been carrying out for a long, long time.”

“There is widespread public perception that certain members of parliament are behind all the serious organised crime going on in this country. This includes serious drug issues, gang violence, stabbings,” she alleged, in a previous interview with Minivan News.

“These are allegations only because they have never come up before a court of law in all this time.”

“It is a much discussed issue, but it has never come up in the courts. I can see now that perhaps it may be true – otherwise why prevent the formation of an independent judiciary? I don’t think they would have confidence that they would get away free,” Velezinee said, observing that former political figures such as attorney generals were now representing these MPs in court as their lawyers, “and, by and large, they win every case.”

“This is not such a far-fetched radical thought coming from me any more because of the things we have seen over the last year to do with politicians and judicial action. The courts are a playground for politicians and are not trusted by the general public. Parliament has failed, and there is no other institutional mechanism in this constitution for the JSC to be held to account.”

In January this year Velezinee was stabbed three times in broad daylight while walking down Male’s main tourist street, on the same day that the High Court judges were due to be appointed.

“My first fear was that I would easily I bleed to death,” she told Minivan News, after she was discharged from hospital. “But I took a deep breath and realised I was alive. As soon as I realised this, the only thing I wanted to do was go and get the blood stopped and get to the Commission because this was the day of the High Court appointments, and I know they wanted me out of the way. I didn’t realise how serious the wounds were, I didn’t see them until two days later when I went for a dressing change.”

Many international organisations, including Transparency International and the ICJ, expressed “grave concern that the attack may be politically motivated.”

“There are honourable men in this country who are owned by others, and they may be put in a position where they believe they have to take my life. I knew there was a chance that I was risking murder, and I wasn’t wrong,” Velezinee told Minivan News, following her recovery. “It was only because of God’s grace that I survived.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Runaway judiciary leaves the Maldives “at a dangerous junction”, says Velezinee

The Maldives is at “a dangerous junction” following the publication of an in-depth report into the state of the country’s judiciary by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), says President’s Member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) Aishath Velezinee.

The report was released this week following a visit by an ICJ delegation that included former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Dr Leandro Despouy. It urged the provision of institutional and individual support for judges and magistrates in the Maldives, foreign oversight and assistance, and highlighted judicial accountability as “the key to cultivating public confidence [in the judiciary]”.

The report was especially critical of the JSC, “constitutionally established as an independent and impartial body tasked with vetting non-Supreme Court judges and magistrates.”

The JSC, the report said, “was unable to carry out its functions in a sufficiently transparent, timely, and impartial manner. To date, JSC decision-making has been perceived as being inappropriately influenced by a polarised political environment. Also troubling is that members of the judiciary have been subject to threats and intimidation as well as improper inducements by both governing and opposition party members.”

The JSC has refused to even table the report, Velezinee said on Thursday.

“We have not been given the opportunity to discuss the report in the JSC,” she said.

“The first thing is for those members exposed as not up to the conduct required by JSC to seriously think about resigning. Number two – we need to table the ICJ report and discuss it. But they have shown no interest in doing so.”

The ramifications of not doing this meant that the Maldives  had “a runaway judiciary”, Velezinee said.

“There has been very public resistance from JSC to any sort of democratisation of the JSC. I’m afraid the people are fooled – the constitution promises an independent judiciary and JSC, which would ensure judges are impartial and independent. But the JSC never institutionalised itself as an independent institution.”

The ICJ had managed, Velezinee said, “to put together a clear picture drawing from the little documentation that was available to them.”

“A lot of very political opinions were shared with them by stakeholders, and they would have had to be really vigilant to not be taken in by the politics of it,” Velezinee said.

“I think the challenge for them was that almost all the documentation is in Dhivehi and not available publicly. Considering the difficulties they had getting information and the very political situation we are currently in, I think they have done an excellent job.”

Situation at hand

Under the constitution the next step forward would be for the Majlis (parliament) to act as the independent oversight body and “put the JSC on trial”, Velezinee said.

“But every time controversy in the JSC becomes public the Majlis intervenes – not in a way that holds JSC accountable, but with the sole objective of covering JSC’s misdeeds. Right now the parliament has a three-member subcommittee conducting a secret investigation of JSC – these are meetings that are closed door [and not public knowledge].”

Parliament, Velezinee contended, had failed to hold the JSC to account and had resisted reforming the watchdog body.

“The parliament is together with the judiciary on this – certain influential members of parliament would like to maintain the status quo so they can control the judiciary,” Velezinee said.

“This is not such a far-fetched radical thought coming from me any more because of the things we have seen over the last year to do with politicians and judicial action. The courts are a playground for politicians and are not trusted by the general public.

“Parliament has failed, and there is no other institutional mechanism in this constitution for the JSC to be held to account.”

It was, Velezinee said, in the interests of everyone, including the international community and the state, “to ensure that the constitutional provisions to establish independent judiciary are followed to the letter and in spirit. We have failed to do that.”

The reason for that failure, she suggested, was a fear among leaders of the former administration “who are continuing with criminal activities they have allegedly been carrying out for a long, long time. These are allegations only because they have never come up before a court of law in all this time.

“There is widespread public perception that certain members of parliament are behind all the serious organised crime going on in this country. This includes serious drug issues, gang violence, stabbings. It is a much discussed issue, but it has never come up in the courts. I can see now that perhaps it may be true – otherwise why prevent the formation of an independent judiciary? I don’t think they would have confidence that they would get away free.”

Velezinee observed that former political figures such as attorney generals were now representing these MPs in court as their lawyers, and by and large, “they win every case.”

“I would find it an insult if had to go and argue my case before someone who does not understand the law. Why are these people doing it? On some islands the parents are locking up the primary schools if the teacher is not qualified. Why are we content with people who have not completed primary school sitting on the bench and judging us?”

Deep-rooted cultural issue

Many of the problems now embedded in the Maldives and its institutions can be traced to the fact that the country never had the opportunity to acclimatise to the concept of democracy before it was introduced, Velezinee suggested.

“For the last two years I have done nothing but think about this and try to change the JSC. I have spent hours and hours by myself thinking this through.

“What I think is this: when a student from a developing country goes to a university in a developed country, you go through an orientation process. If you live in the developing world and you go to work in the third world as a volunteer you also go through orientation – it’s to prevent culture shock.

“We just woke up one day to a new culture. We have always had this culture of subservience, of submissiveness where you are taught to respect your elders – certain people who have been shown to you as the leaders. Then suddenly we adopted this constitution that says everyone is equal.

“I think what people have found as my brazenness is that I have dared to publicly criticise the Speaker of Parliament and senior judges. They do not understand that I am equal to them as a member of JSC – the concept is completely lost on them.”

For the past 30 years judges effectively worked as the employees of those “hand-picked” by the former government, Velezinee explained – to the extent that failures to extend a particular ruling as required by the then Ministry of Justice resulted in a black mark on the judge’s file.

“The only qualification it appears was a willingness to submit to the will of the government at the time – to follow orders,” Velezinee said.

“Not everyone has the mindset to follow orders and serve in that kind of capacity. I believe it has excluded people with independent thinking, or the necessary legal knowledge – such people would take it as an insult for someone to order them how to decide a case.

“Now the JSC has decided – I believe with the support of parliament – that the same bench will remain for the next 40 years, retitled as an ‘independent judiciary’.”

Download the ICJ’s report, ‘Maldives: Securing an Independent Judiciary in a Time of Transition’ (English)

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Leaked audio: JSC secretly thinks Supreme Court was better with “uneducated judges” on bench

Supreme Court rulings were far superior under “supposedly uneducated judges” during the interim period compared to those delivered by the current bench, some members of the JSC have said.

JSC members MP Afraasheem Ali, High Court Chief Judge Abdul Ghanee Mohamed, Judge Abdullah Didi and Lawyer Ahmed Rasheed also agree that arbitrary powers of the Supreme Court have increased while the standards of its rulings have fallen since the interim period ended.

The JSC members’ scandalous criticism of the country’s highest court comes at a time when it is facing legal action in the Supreme Court over its handling of recent appointments to the High Court.

The remarks were made at a secret meeting on February 6 to discuss who should represent JSC at the Supreme Court, and came to light after an audio recording of the meeting was leaked to the public via YouTube by a source calling itself ‘dhikileaks‘.

Discussing recent Supreme Court rulings during the lead up to the local council elections, Rasheed, who represents the law community at the JSC, said some of the actions would not have been possible “even under the Blue Constitution” of the “former President”.

“Not even then was such a thing [as the Supreme Court ruling on Addu City] possible,” Justice Ghanee is heard saying to general laughter among the men.

MP Afraasheem, agreeing with Justice Ghanee, is heard responding that, “One very prominent judge has told me that things have reached an embarrassing state.”

“The court’s jurisdiction has changed now with the Justice Act”, Rasheed says. MP Afraasheem agrees, “They are stronger… it is always the voice of the Supreme Court now, isn’t it?”

“When these five judges get together, anything goes,” Rasheed is heard replying. MP Afraasheem is heard pointing out that two dissenting opinions were expressed in the particular Supreme Court ruling they were discussing.

“Yes, but this type of powers…” Justice Ghanee is heard saying. The decision, he adds, was made by “consensus of the majority.” Something, he further adds, “Cannot even be seen in Arabic, an Arab nation”.

Laughing, MP Afraasheem is heard responding, “If it’s a majority decision it means there was no consensus… majority is always unanimous… things that are said!”

“That is just to make things as confusing as possible”, Rasheed adds to Abdullah Didi’s agreement.

He also says that, “during the transition period, when it was being said that judges on the bench did not have an education –the rulings they made were far superior.”

“Mujey [Interim Supreme Court Justice and former JSC Chair Mujthaz Fahmy] and them, their rulings were far superior,” Rasheed continues. MP Afraasheem Ali is heard agreeing with him, laughing, and adding that “Yes, things are far more odd now.”

Colluding to commit perjury

Throughout the conversation, the men – with the help of Acting Secretary General Abdul Faththah Abdul Ghafoor – are heard making phone calls to certain members of the JSC to solicit their approval for appointing MP Afraasheem as the JSC’s official representative at the Supreme Court.

MP Afraasheem, who is the Deputy Chair of the JSC, is successful in ringing JSC Public Member Shu’aib Abdul Rahman and Mohamed Fahmy Hassan and getting their approval to appoint him as JSC’s representative to the Supreme Court.

“The Commission majority is not present here … see the way we arrange things on the phone when that happens?” MP Afraasheem is heard saying on the phone to Shu’aib. Shu’aib confirms that he knows of this procedure, and consents to give his approval.

MP Afraasheem expresses his gratitude, and tells Shu’aib the Commission will send a written copy of the decision for him to sign.

“You don’t have a problem with that, Usthaz Shu’aib. That’s okay?” Afraasheem asks. “Yes, yes, yes”, Shu’aib is heard replying.

Once the phone call to Shu’aib is over, Afraasheem, Ghanee and Rasheed are heard discussing whom they should phone next. Ghanee is heard rejecting a suggestion by one of the men to phone Attorney General Sawad, “That will not be so good.”

The careful selection of which JSC members to phone suggests the calls were being made only to those perceived as likely to approve Afraasheem’s appointment; and to those who were unlikely to object to granting their approval on the phone – an act that directly contravenes the Constitution and JSC regulations.

Article 163 of the Constitution states that any meeting of the JSC should be attended by a majority of its 10 members, and that any decision taken by JSC should be by a majority vote cast by members present.

Only five members of the JSC had signed in as present at the meeting on February 6.

JSC interim Secretary General Abdul Faththah has told Minivan News that while there “should be quorum”, in time-sensitive matters such as court summons members sometimes had to make decisions outside formal meetings, with the approval of other members.

“This is not a matter so important to take a decision with the discussion of the members,” he said.

Forging documents for the Supreme Court

The JSC sent a letter to the Supreme Court, with the same date, saying that “a majority decision had been taken by members who participated in the meeting on February 6” to appoint MP Afraasheem as JSC’s representative to the higher courts.

There are six signatures on the document – that of the four men supposedly present at the meeting, and the two men – Shua’ib and Fahmy – who were absent at the meeting, but had agreed on the phone to Afraasheem’s proposal.

The document is misleading, and represents the decision as having been made by six members who were present at the meeting.

Minivan News can also confirm that the four members present at the meeting had engineered it in such a way that one of its members, Aishath Velezinee, was deliberately excluded from the meeting despite having presented herself at the scheduled time.

Velezinee, who has been the most outspoken and vocal critic of what she has called “machinations of deliberate deceit” at the JSC, had arrived for the meeting as scheduled at 7:30p.m.

After 15 minutes, when the required six members failed to attend, the meeting was cancelled as is required by JSC regulations and Constitutional stipulations. Velezinee left the meeting room, the three men and Acting Secretary General – JSC’s third appointment to the post in five months – remained behind.

Suspecting “something was amiss”, Velezinee stayed within JSC premises after the meeting was called off. The four men were still in the meeting room when she returned to check a quarter of an hour later.

She asked them what they were up to, and was told they were just wrapping things up before leaving. She left. It was after her departure that the three men began making the phone calls. The fourth, Judge Abdulla Didi, had joined some time after she left around 8.00pm, says Velezinee.

The contents of the leaked audiotape supports Velezinee’s version of events as Judge Abdulla Didi is heard saying that the meeting “was cancelled” and “we can’t order for a cancelled meeting”, when MP Afraasheem Ali asks if anyone wants refreshments.

Premeditated plan of deception

In the audio recording of the meeting the four men are also heard discussing not just which members to phone but also what should be said in order to attain the approval they were seeking.

MP Afraasheem, for instance, discusses his phone call with Shu’aib asking if had “said the right things”. Abdul Ghanee replies that it was “perfect”, and disagrees with MP Afraasheem that perhaps he should have “made things a bit shorter”.

Laughing, Ghanee says, “No, no, that is just about right.” The men also discuss whether they should first send text messages to their targeted members, and whether it is best to ring them on the Secretariat mobile phones first as they would be more likely to pick up then.

After Shu’aib, Afraasheem’s next call is to Mohamed Fahmy Hassan whom he tells he is “calling from that big phone” at the JSC.

Inquiring after how things went “during the campaign”, he laughingly tells Fahmy that “Usthaz Ghanee, Usthaz Ahmed Rasheed and Usthaz Didi” were all listening.

Afraasheem is heard requesting Fahmy’s approval to appoint him as JSC’s legal representative to the Supreme Court, and also informs him that Shu’aib had already said yes.

“If you want, Afraasheem…”, Fahmy is heard saying.

“What you are saying is that if I have no objections to the appointment, you have none. Is that so?” Afraasheem says. “Yes, yes”, Fahmy says. Afraasheem also tells Fahmy that Ghanee had suggested appointing Fahmy himself as the representative.

“No, no. Keep me at a bit of a distance”, Fahmy demurs. “In that case”, replies Afraasheem, “I will send you the decision for you to sign.” Fahmy agrees.

Fahmy has previously told Minivan News he had no comment on matters relating to the JSC.

The men also appear to be aware of the underhanded nature of their actions, saying such tactics would have been harder had the JSC Chair Adam Mohamed been present.

“It would not have been this easy to do this if Adam was here”, Justice Ghanee is heard saying referring to Adam Mohamed’s lengthy pronunciations. Abdulla Didi agrees, “Yes, that’s the problem with Adam, isn’t it?”

Adam was abroad at the time of the meeting.

Once Fahmy gave his approval, Afraasheem hangs up the phone, and is heard declaring, “This is fun!”

He continues, “Tension. Able to get rid of the tension! We have six now, don’t we?” he says, referring to the six signatures that are needed for a JSC decision to be valid and binding.

“Six,” Rasheed is heard confirming.

“We have six”, Faththah says. The audio recording ends with some muffled voices in which one of the voices, which cannot be identified, says, “So lets get this signed and done with.”

JSC’s efforts to resist judiciary reform

JSC’s criticism of the Supreme Court bench, and the broad agreement among the men that the Court functioned better during the interim period reflects a general attitude observed among some JSC members to resist bringing the judiciary in line with the 2008 Constitution.

MP Afraasheem has been at the forefront of the resistance. He has, for example, dismissed as “symbolic” Article 285 of the Constitution, which demands that all judges who do not meet its newly stipulated qualifications be dismissed after two years of it coming into force.

The two years were up in August 2010, and the JSC has failed to take the required steps to remove or replace unqualified judges, instead deciding to re-appoint the whole bench having declared it “a violation of their human rights” to remove them under a retrospective law – meaning the new Constitution.

Moreover, in December of last year, MP Afraasheem successfully sought Majlis approval for legislation that granted a lifetime pension of Rf 600,000 (US$46,700) a year to former Interim Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy.

Fahmy was on the bench of the Interim Supreme Court, which was dissolved on 10 August, 2010. When the new Supreme Court proper was established he was not re-appointed to the bench.

Records seen by Minivan News show that Fahmy is nowhere near meeting the educational qualifications required of a judge in any court, let alone the Supreme Court, and had also been found guilty of embezzling State funds.

Fahmy lacks a basic law degree, trained a total of 217 days in the 29 years he spent in the judiciary, and possesses a ‘sentencing certificate’ obtained as his only claim to an education in law.

Some of the 217 days Fahmy spent in ‘professional training’ included  time spent acquiring the skills to use a computer.

MP Afraasheem told an approving Majlis that awarding the extraordinarily generous pension to Fahmy would strengthen the country’s judiciary and ensure its honesty and integrity.

JSC and a legal black hole

Alleged irregularities in its recent High Court appointments are not the only reasons for which the JSC has been recently summoned to the courts. In January this year, Civil Court Judge Mariyam Nihayath threw out a professional negligence case against the JSC.

Treasure Island Limited had brought the civil suit against the JSC alleging that it had failed to carry out its constitutional duties by arbitrarily dismissing its complaints of misconduct against two judges in a case involving millions of US Dollars and prominent members of the tourism industry.

Although the JSC failed to satisfy Judge Nihayath that it did have a proper procedure for dealing with complaints against the judiciary, she threw out the case against it when Treasure Island was late for the court on what was to be the penultimate hearing of the case.

Shortly after, the JSC launched its process for the High Court appointments. Judge Nihayath was one of the unsuccessful candidates, and is also among three candidates who have written to the JSC requesting further details on the selection criteria.

Although Nihayath and two other judges have written to the JSC seeking clarification of the procedures for making High Court appointments, and despite the fact that the High Court is virtually suspended while the case remains pending at the Supreme Court, the JSC does not appear to be treating the matter with any real importance or urgency.

It tabled the three judges’ requests for discussion on 16 February. It was the second last matter to be discussed – before the matter of the retirement procedure for judges who are over 70 years of age, and after four other items including the matter of what legal action to take against Velezinee.

Velezinee’s alleged removal of JSC’s official documents from its premises appears to be the matter to which the JSC is according most importance, ahead of a properly functioning judicial system.

The contents of the dhikileaks audio tape has been available to the public, and broadcast in the national media, from last week onwards. The JSC is yet to pay any attention to it, despite the evidence it provides of members colluding to submit a forged document to the Supreme Court, committing perjury.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) conducted a fact-finding mission in September of last year, and is due to publish its findings tomorrow.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)