Category: Judiciary

Get up, stand up

by Azra Naseem

It is an extremely tense day in the Maldives as tens of thousands of people wait on tenterhooks for what seems to be the inevitable: the imprisonment of opposition leader, former president and icon of democracy, Mohamed Nasheed.

The outcome of the ‘trial’ which Nasheed has been subjected to is certain, the verdict written long before he was charged with ‘terrorism’ and remanded in custody on the island of Dhoonidhoo on 22 February. Everything that followed since that Sunday, over two weeks ago now, has been a sham and a travesty against justice. The barbarity was put on full display to the world, when Nasheed was brought to ‘court’ for the first hearing. Policemen, belonging to the notorious Special Operations, pushed and shoved Nasheed to the ground. Pictures and videos of the event shocked the country, and the world.

The current rulers, led by Yameen Abdul Gayoom, shrugged off the outcry with nonchalance. Locally, the police claimed Nasheed had pulled a stunt, fallen to the ground voluntarily like a footballer faking an injury looking for to be rewarded with a penalty. It did not matter that video and pictorial evidence told a different story. Internationally, Foreign Minister Dunay Maumoon was recalcitrant, insisting that Nasheed’s trial is a ‘domestic issue’ that no foreigners have a say in. The government remained impervious to all outside criticism. Even the cancellation of a planned trip by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a diplomatic slap of substantial magnitude, did not make any impact on its determination to pursue with their chosen path of leading Nasheed to jail. In fact, as time passed, the government grew more belligerent. Yameen Abdul Gayoom said on 9 March that people in distant foreign lands should butt out of Maldivian affairs. Brushed aside were the many international treaties which the Maldives is signatory to, which gives the international community the right to particular actions during certain circumstances — such as in times of the destruction of rule of law.

And what a destruction it has been. Every hearing in the court, itself unconstitutional, has dealt a deathblow to the concept of rule of law. The Prosecutor General’s appointment now appears to have been engineered for the very purpose of this prosecution, as are the panel of three ‘judges’. None of them have adequate legal qualifications, and all of them are in each other’s pockets. All of them have close ties to the man at the centre of these ‘terrorism’ charges—Ablow Ghaazee, himself accused of misconduct and corruption—who Nasheed allegedly ‘kidnapped’.

The three man bench has obstructed justice at every opportunity, refusing to give Nasheed’s lawyers enough time to study evidence; giving them evidence on CDs that do not open or have been damaged; refusing Nasheed the opportunity to appoint new lawyers when the current ones objected to their unlawful treatment; and incredibly, refusing to allow Nasheed to present witnesses with the judgement that no witness can disprove the prosecution case.

Every hearing has been held after sundown, and Nasheed brought to court in darkened vehicles under heavy police escort. The lengths to which prosecutors have gone to separate Nasheed and his supporters, and to prevent media from taking pictures of him, have been ludicrous at times. On 8 March, about an hour before Nasheed was brought to court, the powers that be spread a blue banner across the entrance to the building, placed strategically to cover the camera angle from which Raajje TV usually shoots Nasheed’s court arrival. The banner read ‘Welcome, International Women’s Day.’ A blatant mockery not of justice alone, but also of women.

There has been much anguish among Nasheed’s supporters. On 27 February tens of thousand came out to protest against the court’s decision to remand Nasheed in custody throughout the trial. It was the biggest political gathering the capital island of Male’ had ever seen. People flooded the main street of Majeedhee Magu almost covering it from end to end. Since then there have been protests every night and everyday on various different locations across the country. But the government is refusing to listen to them no matter how many there are; it seeks to shut them down instead.

Every protest is manned by hundreds of Special Operations police, sometimes with reinforcements from the army. Almost every other protest ends in brutality and/or arrests. Scores have been arrested, taken to prison, then released with the unconstitutional condition that they don’t protest for periods of time as set by the court-–sometimes days, sometimes months. Leaders of MDP are handpicked for the arrests, making sure that less and less of them will be able to join protests against Nasheed’s arrest. One person—MP Fayyaz Ismail—refused to sign the court’s unlawful protest ban. He was given an extra 15 days in custody. There is no legal basis for such an order.

An increasing number of locations are being declared ‘no-protest zones’ for various reasons: for residents’ peace; for local business interests; for law and order, etc. etc. Freedom of assembly is being rolled back swiftly, and without hesitation. Other associated freedoms are under similar attack. Journalists are being barred from covering the trial without legal reason. Reporters are being banned from videoing places they are legally allowed to. Police are forcing them to delete footage already recorded without legal authority to do so. The state broadcaster is continuing to ignore the biggest ‘trial’ in the country’s recent history, completely ignoring its duty to keep citizens informed.

Meanwhile, Yameen and members of his ruling cabal are relishing the distress and helplessness of supporters of democracy and Nasheed. Decorum and statesmanship are nowhere to be seen. When MDP MPs protested against Yameen’s inaugural speech in Parliament, he gave into his indignation, getting up and waving his thumbs up and down, then up again, like a crazed Caligula in Roman times.

Yameen’s trusted sidekick, Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb, who has shrugged off corruption charges amounting to millions of US Dollars and engineered the unconstitutional removal of the Auditor General who dared bring up the charges, led a motorbike procession on the streets of Male’ this weekend, calling to expedite Nasheed’s conviction. Among the rats led by this Pied Piper on a bike with a Rolex watch on his wrist and a sapphire ring on his finger, was the current Defence Minister, ex-military General Moosa Jaleel. Jaleel in his eagerness to belong to Yameen’s cabal, and thus enjoy automatic immunity, forgot that he is himself on trial for the same charges he was calling Nasheed to be convicted for.

To further increase the public disgust level [or degree of impressiveness, if the onlooker is a supporter of Bro Adeeb], Adeeb has led a ‘movement’ that mimics Yameen’s thumbs-down gestures as if it is something to be celebrated and not shamed by. He has posed with his thumbs down with cabinet ministers and parliament members—as well as with his usual string of young, disaffected men on the fringes, and in the heart of, Maldives’ violent gang culture. Everyone in the Motorcade of The Shamelessness wore t-shirts emblazoned with a thumbs-down signal.

This hatred of Nasheed as a person cultivated with relish by Yameen and Adeeb has been embraced by thousands of their supporters. It has blinded them to the fact that what is being destroyed in this sham is not just Nasheed’s personal freedoms but also every single Maldivian’s many civil and political rights and their right to equal justice for all.

The fundamental problem with the Maldives’ transition to democracy was that it was unable, and oftentimes unwilling, to reform the judiciary. Few had the foresight to see where the democratic transition would end without an independent judiciary based on the principles of rule of law. Now, even on hindsight – with the results on full display – many are still too blinded by personal vendettas, grudges and hate to see that this ‘trial’ of Nasheed is the last nail in the coffin for a democratic future for the Maldives. Years of anti-Nasheed propaganda have closed people’s eyes to the fact that whatever wrong he may have done, if they want themselves to be treated fairly and equally and live in a just society, they must protest against the injustice he is being subjected to.

Today it is the moral obligation for every Maldivian to stand up against injustice. The subject of concern is not a particular individual, be it Nasheed, Nazim, the common man jailed for six years for stealing a jar of fish-paste; or the murderer who is allowed to walk free because he is in the inner cabal. It is justice itself.

Last time the people should have stood up en masse for justice and did not, the Maldives was robbed of a free and fair election. The result is in office, orchestrating injustice, via the courts that engineered his election. This time if the people fail to stand up, it will shut all doors to another election in the foreseeable future; along with the doors to equal justice for all, quite likely for generations to come.

Why we must object to the farce of a ‘trial’ against Nasheed

by Aishath Velezinee

On Sunday, former President of Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, was arrested. The arrest warrant issued by Criminal Court stated “terrorism charges brought against the subject and fears that he may not attend the Court or go into hiding” as reason for arrest. The evidence and substantiation for Court decision was given as, “how matters had transpired when a case against subject was heard at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, and Police Intelligence reports”. The arrest warrant was provided on the request of the Prosecutor General who was according to the arrest warrant, “investigating case”.

Till then, there had been no mention of terrorism charges against Nasheed by any authority nor had an investigation into terrorist activities by Nasheed taken place.

Local media soon reported the trial has been scheduled in Criminal Court for 4pm today, and it emerged that the Prosecutor General had filed new terrorism charges in Criminal Court after withdrawing the case against Nasheed pending in Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court for over two years as Nasheed challenged the cherrypicking of his trial bench by the Judicial Service Commssion and the procedural appeals dragged on without decision.

As the new trial begins in a couple of hours, there is more reason than ever before to object to the farce.

  1. The current Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin is a former Criminal Court judge, who worked as a junior judge under Criminal Court chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed who is himself the subject in the case against Nasheed.
  1. Media reports the Criminal Court has selected a bench of three judges – Judge Abdulla Didi, Judge Ahmed Rasheed and Judge Shujau Usman – for the case.

The first two are both former members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) who played crucial roles within JSC in both re-appointing Abdulla Mohamed as judge despite him not meeting criteria and pending serious misconduct issues, and in covering up misconduct after re-appointment. Moreover, both carry bias against Nasheed evident in JSC records, especially in discussions of misconduct allegations against Judge Abdulla Mohamed filed with the JSC by the President’s Office in 2009 when Nasheed was in office.

Judge Didi served on the JSC from it’s establishment as an interim commission in 2008 till 2015 as the lower courts appointee. Ahmed Rasheed elected by the law community served on the JSC from 2009 to 2015 and was appointed a Criminal Court judge by the JSC just days ago.

The third, Shujau Usman, was re-appointed a Magistrate by JSC despite a criminal record and was one of three magistrates cherry-picked by the JSC for the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench for Nasheed’s case.

Nasheed’s trial then is not simply political persecution by the government of President Yameen but an already orchestrated trial, managed by the JSC, with the Prosecutor General and the Criminal Court bench already set against Nasheed and ready to avenge Abdulla Mohamed.

Meanwhile, heading the JSC today is Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed infamous for his white underpants and sex tapes gone viral on the internet.

Mutiny of the State: Maldives gets away with another coup d’état

VelTwitter

by Aishath Velezinee

A year ago the Supreme Court of the Maldives reigned supreme. The court, and at times the Chief Justice alone, ran wild with “the powers of the Supreme Court” citing Article 145 (c) for Supreme Court interference in all manner of issues. Article 268 on supremacy of the Constitution binds the Supreme Court too. But both the Supreme Court and Parliament majority were willfully blind to this as they got their way, citing the Constitution to justify outrageous breaches of the Constitution.

Few among the general public in a polity with a history of authoritarian rule and unfamiliar with the concept of the rule of law understood contraventions of the Constitution, especially when the breaches were blatantly defended by the Supreme Court. In the absence of a culture of democracy it was often reduced to whatever the “majority” decided, by hook or by crook. To win was the ultimate goal in elections as well as in litigation, no matter how. Reason by the minority was drowned out and, with the Supreme Court politicised and the Parliament majority with the President, an Executive dictatorship reigned in the shadow of the supreme Supreme Court.

The gravity of the situation became visible to the public and the international community during the 2013 presidential elections, when the Supreme Court repeatedly intervened in the election process, often working the graveyard shift and issuing midnight decrees and directives to control the elections. Polls were nullified and voting was repeatedly rescheduled to ensure an election win for Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom, half-brother of the 30-year dictator Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. Why the Supreme Court may have had an interest in seeing Yameen as the president may be seen in Yameen’s statement to the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI) that decided the 7 February 2012 coup was not a coup

Soon after the presidential elections, the Supreme Court also facilitated a win for President Yameen’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) in parliamentary elections, removing the Elections Commissioner and his deputy in the first suo moto case, suo moto vs Elections Commission of Maldives. The Elections Commissioner was accused of contempt of the Court and undermining the powers of the Supreme Court.

During the election campaign President Yameen, like PPM MPs in their campaigns, pledged to protect the judiciary from interference, condemning the local and international calls for judicial reform as “interference in the judiciary”. The Supreme Court is the highest authority, the bearer of the last word in all matters of law, and none had the power to criticize or demand reform of the judiciary, both the Supreme Court and President Yameen agreed.

Dismissive of all expert reports on the Maldives judiciary, the Supreme Court adopted contempt of court regulations to prohibit media and public criticism and went as far as to initiate court action against the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) in suo moto vs HRCM, charging all members of the HRCM with high treason for their 2014 report to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for noting Supreme Court unduly influences and controls the judiciary.

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain played his cards to win. From giving oath to Vice President Dr. Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik without question and legitimising the 7 February 2012 coup d’état to guaranteeing a win for coup-leader Yameen in the 2013 elections, facilitating a PPM majority in Parliament and remaining silent while PPM majority systematically undermined the Constitution and ruled by law instead of upholding the rule of law, Faiz never faltered.

None of these mattered when on Monday, 14 December 2014 when, following an amendment to the Judicature Act which required the Supreme Court bench to be reduced from seven to five justices, the PPM majority in Parliament removed from the bench Chief Justice Faiz and Justice Muthasim Adnan—the only voice of reason, and often only voice of dissent from majority opinion in the court.

PoliceJangiya

Supreme Court Justice and Chief of the Interim Supreme Court Abdulla Saeed who I maintain engineered hijacking of the judiciary in 2010 in what I have since called the silent coup, was rewarded with the title of Chief Justice. Solemnising the historic oath of the new Chief Justice was none other than Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed whose white underpants made international headlines after the Court ruled against display of white underpants in public protests. The white pants became a protest prop against Justice Ali Hameed after videos of the judge with foreign sex workers in a hotel in Colombo, Sri Lanka, went viral on the internet.

The Final Nail in the Coffin

Amendments to the Judicature Act were passed by the Parliament majority on Wednesday and ratified by President Yameen on Thursday.

Under the new amendments two judges were to be removed from the Supreme Court to reduce the bench from seven to five Justices; and the High Court bench is to be chopped in three equal parts, with three of the nine justices assigned to three geographical regions. A total of 43 MPs voted for the change, all members of PPM the government majority, and errant members of the opposition.

Within hours of ratification, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) who had staunchly refused to assess or remove a single judge as required for the de facto transition under Constitution Article 285, announced a decision to submit names of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain and Justice Muthasim Adnan for removal. No reasons were given as to why or how the JSC reached the decision to remove them. The media was simply told it was a secret decision and that the Commission had decided not to reveal procedure or reason.

On Saturday, while the opposition, senior lawyers, commentators, media, social media activists, CSOs, the public and even the Civil Court declared the amendments to the Judicature Act unconstitutional and illegitimate, politicians “bargained” to win the two-third simple majority required to remove a judge.

On Sunday, the State worked overtime. Sunday morning, while opposition-led protests were kept at a distance by Police barricades around the Parliament building, government MPs with Parliament majority voted to remove Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain and Justice Muthasim Adnan. MDP issued a three-line whip to reject the dismissal of the justices but with at least five opposition MPs making themselves absent from the proceedings, the required two-third simple majority vote was guaranteed. MDP MPs and some JP MPs raised the matter of the unconstitutionality of the amendment to judicature Act—the fact is that Article 154 of the Constitution, under which the Majlis had scheduled to remove the justices, does not permit the removal of a judge except where the Judicial Service Commission finds the person grossly incompetent, or guilty of gross misconduct.  MPs also noted no such report  from the JSC regarding the two judges who were to be removed had been made available to them nor was it on record with the Parliament. It was noted that the only documentation before Parliament was a three-line note from the JSC seeking the removal of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain and Justice Muthasim Adanan, and that this was forced upon the JSC by the Parliament with the unconstitutional amendment to the Judicature Act.

Parliament majority leader of PPM spoke for the government, laughing at opposition claims of unconstitutionality, and citing Constitution Article 70 and the powers of the Parliament therein to, in his interpretation, “make any law on any matter and any manner, whenever and wherever Parliament wish”! That there were limits upon the Parliament, and that the Parliament may not enact a law detrimental to the Constitution was lost upon him.

JangiyaaThe vote was won and, Sunday afternoon, it was reported that JSC had proposed Supreme Court Justice Abdulla Saeed for the post of Chief Justice. Sunday evening, Parliament was back in session and Abdulla Saeed was appointed the new Chief Justice with 55 votes. Before midnight, Abdulla Saeed had taken oath.

Amendment to the Judicature Act, execution of amendment on Supreme Court with the dismissal of Chief Justice and another Supreme Court justice, and appointment of a new Chief Justice, was all over before Monday morning, the earliest when the international community could possibly react.

Corrupting of the Judiciary

In 2010, the JSC, supported by then opposition Parliament majority, refused to execute Article 285, and re-appointed all sitting judges en masse. Further, both JSC and opposition MPs misled the public on JSC’s actions leading up to the collective judges’ oath on 4 August 2010, making false claims on the “procedure” as well as the discussions in the closed sittings of the Commission.

The JSC published what it called the  “legal reasoning on the Article 285 decision” speaking of the “human rights of judges” and citing Constitution section 51 (h) and ICCPR Article 14:2 and UDHR Article 11 on rights of the accused, to explain why no sitting judge may be removed for misconduct or failing to be of good character. “No one can be penalized (dismissed) by a retrospective law,” JSC claimed in 2010, the “law” referred to here by the JSC being the Constitution (2008).

The JSC’s decision stood as few protested against it, and complaints to Parliament oversight Committee, the Anti Corruption Commission and the Human Rights Commission on JSC’s treason were ignored or covered up.

The appointment of the Supreme Court too was a political decision influenced by the existing power balance in the Parliament, and the pressure from the international community for “political negotiation and peace”.

Reports of the International Commission of Jurists who probed the issue following appeals in 2010 and the UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Lawyers and Judges and FIDH who made inquiries after the February 2012 coup d’état all recognise fundamental mis-conceptualizations in appointment of judges and in the use of concepts like independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in the Maldives.

Rule By Law: Precedents in the Maldives

Removal of Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain and Justice Muthasim Adnan from the Supreme Court bench through amendment legislation is not a first breach. A number of similar unconstitutional actions where political “majority” power reigned supreme have set the precedent. Some major comparable instances are found in the following:

  • Removal of the Chair of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), High Court Chief Justice Abdul Ghani Mohamed from the JSC through a High Court decree on 21 January 2010. The decision was taken by three of the five High Court Justices while the fourth was on leave, and, without the knowledge of Abdul Ghani himself. The move contravened democratic principles. The JSC did not investigate the misconduct and abuse of power by the three High Court Judges despite the adoption of a motion to do so, and appointed two of the said three High Court justices to the Supreme Court and appointed the third as Chief Justice of the High Court.
  • The legitimisation of JSC’s breach of Constitution Article 285 by the Judicature Act of 10 August 2010 which brought down the standards and qualifications stipulated in the Constitution for judges.
  • The amendment to the Judicature Act on 10 August 2010, the same day it was passed and ratified, to qualify Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi for the Supreme Court bench.
  • The legitimisation of the 7 February 2012 coup d’état by majority power in Parliament.
  • The removal of the Auditor General through amendment to the Auditor General’s Act in 2014.

Another coup d’état?

If a coup d’état is understood as hijacking of State powers, and bringing down of legitimate Constitutional government, and/or the derailment of Constitutional government, the Maldives has once again carried out a coup d’état, this time going full circle to complete what I have called earlier the silent coup.

With Monday’s move all State powers are once again with the President who has got himself Parliament majority with the power to write and rewrite law; and the shamelessness to do so without regard to the Constitution, democratic principles, public outrage or international criticism.

With the Supreme Court secured, Parliament is now on fast track, undoing the Constitutional rights and safeguards. Next step will be the elimination of all opposition including independent voices, all by Court order and verdicts, once again by the powers of the Constitution. Where do the people of Maldives go with this case of the mutiny of the state against its’ own Constitution and people?


Author’s Note: All illustrations and photos used in the article are taken from the public response to the issue on social media