Statement by President Nasheed’s Legal Team

The Maldives High Court today dismissed an appeal filed by President Mohamed Nasheed in which he contested the legality of the process by which the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) appointed judges to the Hulhumale Magistrate Court tasked with the trial over the detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

In doing so, the High Court has contravened a previous ruling it had issued on 1st April 2013, during the first hearing of President Nasheed’s appeal.

The High Court today said it does not have the jurisdiction to hear President Nasheed’s claim and said that the actions and the administrative decisions of the JSC is not subject to review by an appellate court.

However, the High Court in April 2013 had ruled it is authorized as an appellate court to hear claims against the JSC. We note two of the three judges who made the initial declaration formed the three member bench that issued today’s verdict.

ރައީސް މުޙައްމަދު ނަޝީދުގެ ޤާނޫނީ ވަކީލުންގެ ނޫސް ބަޔާން

ރައީސް މުޙައްމަދު ނަޝީދުގެ މައްޗަށް ދައުލަތުން އުފުލާފައިވާ ޖިނާޢީ ދައުވާ ކުރިއަށް ނުގެންދެވުމަށް ޖުމްހޫރީ ޕާޓީގެ ލީޑަރު އޮނަރަބްލް ޤާސިމް އިބްރާހީމް ގޮވާލައްވައި، އެމައްސަލައިގައި ރައީސް މުޙައްމަދު ނަޝީދުގެ މައްޗަށް ޝަރީޢަތްކުރާނެ ޖާގަ ނެތް ކަމަށް ދެކެވަޑައިގަންނަވާ ކަމަށާއި އަދި އެ ދަޢުވާ ޕްރޮސެކިޔުޓަރ ޖެނެރަލް އަނބުރާ ގެންދެވުމަށް އިލްތިމާސް ދަންނަވާފައިވާތީ އެކަމަށް މަރުހަބާ ދަންނަވަމެވެ.

މިނިވަން ކަމާއެކު ފިކުރުކުރުމާއި، އިސްލާމް ދީނުގެ އަސްލަކާ ޚިލާފުނުވާ ގޮތުގެ މަތީން އެމީހެއްގެ ބުއްދިއަށް ފެންނަ ގޮތްތަކާއި، ޚިޔާލުތައް ދުލާއި ގަލަމުން އަދި މިނޫންވެސް ގޮތްގޮތަށް ފާޅުކުރުމުގެ މިނިވަންކަން ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ޖުމްހޫރިއްޔާގެ ޤާނޫނުއަސާސީގެ 27 ވަނަމާއްދާއިން ވަނީ ކޮންމެ މީހަކަށްމެ ކަށަވަރުކޮށްދީފައެވެ.

ރައީސް މުޙައްމަދު ނަޝީދުގެ މައްޗަށް އުފުލާފައިވާ ދަޢުވާ ކުރިއަށް ނުގެންދެވުމަށް ފެނިވަޑައިގަންނަވާ ސަބަބުތަކާއި، އެމަނިކުފާނުގެ މައްޗަށް އެޝަރީޢަތް ކުރާނެ ޖާގައެއް ނެތްކަމަށް އޮނަރަބްލް ޤާސިމް އިބްރާހީމަށް ފެނިވަޑައިގަންނަވާ ސަބަބުތައް ވިދާޅުވެދެއްވުމުން، އޮނަރަބްލް ޤާސިމް އިބްރާހީމްއާ މެދު ފިޔަވަޅު އަޅުއްވާނެކަމަށް ޕްރޮސެކިޔުޓަރ ޖެނެރަލް ވިދާޅުވުމަކީ، ޤާނޫނުއަސާސީގެ 27 ވަނަ މާއްދާއިން އޮނަރަބްލް ޤާސިމް އިބްރާހީމްއަށް ލިބިވަޑައިގެންފައިވާ ޚިޔާލުފާޅުކުރުމުގެ ޙައްޤަށް ހުރަސް އެޅުން ކަމުގައިވާތީ، ޤާނޫނުއަސާސީއާ ޚިލާފު އެފަދަ ޢަމަލެއް ޕްރޮސެކިޔުޓަރ ޖެނެރަލް ނުހިންގެވުމަށް އިލްތިމާސް ދަންނަވަމެވެ. އަދި ދަންނަވަމެވެ. ޤާނޫނުއަސާސީން ރައްޔިތުންނަށް ކަށަވަރުކޮށްދީފައިވާ އަސާސީ ޙައްޤުތަކާއި މިނިވަންކަމުގެ ތެރޭގައި ރައްޔިތުން ހިންގާ އެކިއެކި ކަންކަމަށް ހުރަސް އެޅޭ ގޮތަށް ވާހަކަފުޅު ނުދެއްކެވުމަށްވެސް މިފުރުޞަތުގައި އިލްތިމާސް ދަންނަވަމެވެ.

ހައިކޯޓުގެ ޝަރީޢަތް ދޮޅުމަސްދުވަހުގެ މުއްދަކަށްފަހު ފެއްޓެވުމަށް އެދިވަޑައިގެންފި

ރައީސް މުޙައްމަދު ނަޝީދު ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ހައިކޯޓަށް ހުށަހެޅުއްވި، ހުޅުމާލޭ މެޖިސްޓްރޭޓް ކޯޓުގައި ކުރިއަށްދާ ރައީސް މުޙައްމަދު ނަޝީދުގެ ޝަރީޢަތް ހިންގުމަށް ޖުޑީޝަލް ސަރވިސް ކޮމިޝަނުން އެކުލަވާލާފައިވާ ފަނޑިޔާރުންގެ ބެންޗް އެކުލަވާލާފައިވަނީ ޤާނޫނާ ޚިލާފަށްކަމަށް ކަނޑައަޅައި ދިނުމުގެ މައްސަލައިގެ ޝަރީޢަތާ ގުޅިގެން ރައީސް ނަޝީދުގެ ޤާނޫނީ ވަކީލުން މުހިއްމު ދިރާސާތަކެއް ކުރައްވުމަށް ބޭނުންފުޅުވާތީ، ½1 މަސް ދުވަހުގެ މުއްދަތަކަށްފަހު ޝަރީޢަތުގެ އަޑުއެހުންތައް ފެއްޓެވުމަށް ހައިކޯޓުގައި މިއަދު އެމަނިކުފާނުގެ ޤާނޫނީ ވަކީލުން އެދިވަޑައިގެންފިއެވެ.

މިއަދު ހެނދުނު ރައީސް ނަޝީދުގެ ޤަނޫނީ ވަކީލު އަލްއުސްތާޛް ޙަސަން ލަޠީފް ސޮއިކުރައްވައި ހައިކޯޓަށް ފޮނުއްވެވި ސިޓީގައި ވިދާޅުވެފައިވަނީ، ޝަރީޢަތުގެ އަޑުއެހުންތައް މިފަދައިން ފެއްޓެވުމަށް ހައިކޯޓުގައި އެދިވަޑައިގަތީ ހައިކޯޓުން ބައްލަވަމުން ގެންދަވާ މައްސަލައިގެ ޝަރީޢަތުގެ އަޑުއެހުންތައް 1 އޭޕްރީލް 2013 ގައި މެދުކަނޑުއްވާލެއްވިފަހުން މިއަދާ ހަމައަށްވެސް އެޝަރީޢަތުގެ އެއްވެސް އަޑުއެހުމެއް ބާއްވަވާފައިނުވާތީ، ޝަރީޢަތުގެ އަޑުއެހުމެއް ނުބާއްވަވައި މިހައި ދިގު މުއްދަތެއް ފާއިތުވެގެން ގޮސްފައިވާތީ އާއި، ކޯޓުތަކާއި، ފަނޑިޔާރުންނާއި، ޝަރުޢީ ނިޒާމުގެ އިތުރުން ޤާނޫނުތަކަށްވެސް ބޮޑެތި ބަދަލުތަކެއް އައިސްފައިވާތީއާއި، ހައިކޯޓުން އެމައްސަލަ ބައްލަވައި ނިންމަވާއިރު ކޯޓުން ކުރައްވަފާނެ ޙުކުމަކީ ދަށު މަރުހަލާގައި ހިނގަމުންދާ ރައީސް މުޙައްމަދު ނަޝީދުގެ މަސްލަޙަތު އޮތް މައްސަލައަކާ ސީދާ ގޮތުން ގުޅުންހުރި ޙުކުމަކަށް ވެދާނެތީ، ޝަރީޢަތުގެ މިމަރުހަލާގައި ރައީސް މުޙައްމަދު ނަޝީދުގެ ފަރާތްޕުޅުން އިތުރަށް ވާހަކަ ދެއްކުމުގެ ކުރިން ކުރަންޖެހޭ މުހިއްމު ދިރާސާތަކެއް ހުރުމާއެކު އެ ފުރުޞަތު ދެއްވުމަށް އެދިވަޑައިގަންނަވާ ކަމުގައެވެ.

އަދި މީގެ އިތުރުން، ހައިކޯޓުގައި އޮތް އެ މައްސަލައިގެ ޝަރީޢަތުގެ އަޑުއެހުންތައް ނުބޭއްވި ގިނަ ދުވަސްތަކެއް ފާއިތުވަމުންދާތީ އެ ޝަރީޢަތް އަވަސްކޮށްދެއްވުމަށް އެކިފަހަރުމަތިން ރައީސް މުޙައްމަދު ނަޝީދު އެދިވަޑައިގެންފައިވީ ނަމަވެސް، އެޝަރީޢަތުގެ އަޑުއެހުންތައް ނުބާއްވަވައި މިހައި ގިނަ ދުވަސްތަކެއް ފާއިތުވެގެން ގޮސްފައިވާތީ، ދަޢުވާ ކުރާ ފަރާތުގެ ހައިސިއްޔަތުން ރައީސް މުޙައްމަދު ނަޝީދު ހުށަހެޅުއްވި މައްސަލައިގައި ޢަދުލުވެރި ނިޔާއެއް އެމަނިކުފާނަށް ލިބިވަޑައިގަތުމުގެ ފުރުޞަތު މިހާރު ހަނިވެފައިވާކަމުގައިވެސް އެ ސިޓީގައި ފާހަގަކުރައްވާފައިވެއެވެ.

2015 ޖަނަވަރީ 28 ވަނަ ދުވަހުގެ 14:20 އަށް ހައިކޯޓުގައިވާ މައްސަލައިގެ އިބްތިދާޢީ ބައްދަލުވުމަށް ޙާޟިރުވުމަށް ރައީސް މުޙައްމަދު ނަޝީދަށާއި އެމަނިކުފާނުގެ ޤާނޫނީ ވަކީލުންނަށް އަމުރުކުރައްވާފައިވާހިނދު، “ހައިކޯޓު ޤަވާޢިދު 2011” ގެ 39 ވަނަ މާއްދާގެ ދަށުން، އިބްތިދާޢީ ބައްދަލުވުމެއް ނުވަތަ ބައްދަލުވުންތަކެއް ބޭއްވުމުގެ އިޚްތިޔާރު ލިބިދީފައިވަނީ ރަޖިސްޓްރާއަށް ކަމާއި، އަދި އެފަދަ އިބްތިދާޢީ ބައްދަލުވުމެއް ބޭއްވުމުގެ އިޚްތިޔާރު ރަޖިސްޓްރާއަށްވެސް ލިބިދީފައިވަނީ ޝަރީޢަތުގެ އަޑުއެހުމެއް ބޭއްވުމުގެ ކުރިންކަން އެމާއްދާއިން އެނގޭ ކަމަށް އެ ސިޓީގައިވެއެވެ. އެހެން ނަމަވެސް، މައްސަލައިގެ ޝަރީޢަތުގެ އެތައް އަޑުއެހުންތަކެއް ކޯޓުގައި މިހާރު ކުރިއަށް ގެންދަވައިފައިވަނިކޮށް، އެ އަޑުއެހުންތަކުގެ ވަކި ހިސާބަކުން ކޯޓުން ބާއްވަވާ އިބްތިދާޢީ ބައްދަލުވުމަކަށް ޙާޟިރުވުމަށް ޗިޓު ފޮނުއްވާފައިވާތީ އެކަމުގެ ކަންބޮޑުވުންވެސް ފާޅުކުރައްވާފައިވެއެވެ. އަދި ކޯޓުން ބޭއްވެވުމަށް ނިންމަވާފައިވާ އިބްތިދާޢީ ބައްދަލުވުން ބޭއްވެވުމުގެ ބަދަލުގައި ރައީސް މުޙައްމަދު ނަޝީދު ކޯޓަށް ހުށަހަޅުއްވާފައިވާ މައްސަލައިގެ ޝަރީޢަތުގެ އަޑުއެހުންތައް ކުރިއަށް ގެންގޮސްދެއްވުމަށް ވަނީ ހައިކޯޓުގައި އެދިވަޑައިގެންފައެވެ.

ހުޅުމާލެ ކޯޓުގެ ފަނޑިޔާރުންގެ ބެންޗުގެ މައްސަލައިގައި ހައިކޯޓުގައި ކުރިއަށްދާ ޝަރީޢަތް އަވަހަށް ނިންމަވައިދެއްވުމަށް އެދިވަޑައިގެންފި

ރައީސް މުޙަންމަދު ނަޝީދުގެ މައްޗަށް ހުޅުމާލޭ މެޖިސްޓްރޭޓް ކޯޓުގައި ހިންގަމުން ގެންދާ ޝަރީޢަތުގެ ޤަޟިއްޔާ ބެއްލެވުމަށް، ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ޖުޑީޝަލް ސަރވިސް ކޮމިޝަނުން ކަނޑައަޅުއްވާފައިވާ ފަނޑިޔާރުންގެ ބެންޗް އެކުލަވާލާފައިވަނީ، ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ޖުމްހޫރިއްޔާގެ ޤާނޫނުއަސާސީއާއި، ކޯޓުތަކާ ބެހޭ ޤާނޫނާއި، ފަނޑިޔާރުންނާ ބެހޭ ޤާނޫނާއި، ޖުޑީޝަލް ސަރވިސަސް ކޮމިޝަންގެ ޤާނޫނާއި، މިނިވަން ދިމިޤްރާޠީ މުޖްތަމަޢުތަކުގައި ޢަމަލު ކުރަމުން އަންނަ އުޞޫލުތަކާ ކަނޑައެޅިގެން ޚިލާފަށް ކަމަށްވާތީ، އެބެންޗަކީ ޞައްޙަ ބެންޗެއް ނޫންކަމަށް ކަނޑައަޅުއްވައި ދެއްވުމަށް އެދި ރައީސް މުޙަންމަދު ނަޝީދުގެ ފަރާތްޕުޅުން ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ހައިކޯޓަށް ހުށަހަޅުއްވާފައިވާ މައްސަލައިގެ ޝަރީޢަތް އަވަހަށް ނިންމަވައިދެއްވުމަށް ހައިކޯޓުގައި އެދިވަޑައިގެންފިއެވެ.

ރައީސް މުޙައްމަދު ނަޝީދުގެ މައްޗަށް އުފުލިފައިވާ ޖިނާޢީ ދަޢުވާއަށް ވަކި ގޮތެއް ނުނިމި ހުޅުމާލޭ މެޖިސްޓްރޭޓް ކޯޓުގައި އެމައްސަލަ އޮންނަން އެދިވަޑައިނުގަންނަވާތީއާއި، ހުޅުމާލޭ މެޖިސްޓްރޭޓް ކޯޓުގެ ބެންޗާ ގުޅޭ ގޮތުން ހައިކޯޓުން ބައްލަވަމުން ގެންދަވާ މައްސަލައަށްވެސް ވަކި ގޮތެއް ނުނިމި ދިގުލައިގެންދާތީ، ވެވަޑައިގެން އެންމެ އަވަސް ފުރުޞަތެއްގައި ހައިކޯޓުން އެމައްސަލައިގެ އަޑުއެހުންތައް ބާއްވަވައި ދެއްވައި، ފައިސަލާކުރަނިވި ޙުކުމެއް ކޮށްދެއްވުމަށް އެ ސިޓީގައި އެދިވަޑައިގެންނެވިއެވެ.

ރައީސް މުޙައްމަދު ނަޝީދުގެ ޤާނޫނީ ވަކީލު އަލްއުސްތާޛް ޙަސަން ލަޠީފް ސޮއި ކުރައްވައި ހައިކޯޓަށް ސިޓީ ފޮނުވާފައިވަނީ މިއަދު (27 އޭޕްރިލް 2014) އެވެ.

President Nasheed Receives Clearance for Candidacy

President Mohamed Nasheed has received clearance from the courts and other state institutions to submit his candidature to the Elections Commission as the Maldivian Democratic Party’s presidential candidate for the upcoming election on September 7.

Speaking at a press conference at the Mookai Hotel in Male’ today, President Nasheed thanked MDP members and reformists for their efforts to ensure that he would be allowed to contest the presidential election.

President Nasheed expressed gratitude to his legal team as well as international actors for their assistance and cooperation. He also thanked reporters for their coverage of the MDP’s activities since the transfer of power in February 2012.

President Nasheed observed that a ”realignment” of political parties was occurring ahead of the presidential election.

While the Adhaalath Party has decided to enter into a coalition with the Jumhooree Party, President Dr Mohamed Waheed has announced that he would contest the election as an independent candidate, President Nasheed noted, leaving the status of his running mate Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali in question.

President Nasheed extended an invitation to senior members of the Progressive Party of Maldives who have left the party to join MDP.

Asked if he feared that coup perpetrators would be able to rig the election, President Nasheed said he believed that the election would be free and fair after the voter list is properly finalised and observers, monitors and agents are able to participate.

While not discounting the possibility of attempts to rig the election, President Nasheed said: “When the tide has turned it becomes very difficult for anyone to swim against it.”

Statement on the Cancellation of the High Court Hearing on the Legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court Bench

President Nasheed returned to Male’ this afternoon from an on going campaign visit to Raa atoll, to attend a hearing at the High Court, which was unexpectedly cancelled, three hours prior to the hearing.  Today’s hearing was on the case filed by President Nasheed’s legal team contesting the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench overseeing the politically motivated trial against President Nasheed.

The Office of President Nasheed strongly condemns the actions of the State to disrupt the Maldivian Democratic Party’s Presidential campaign through the use of politically motivated judicial actions.

It is with regret that the Office of President Nasheed notes that his request for leave was  not granted, while the High Court is also yet to provide President Nasheed’s legal team with a schedule of court hearings. In addition to these issues, the Office of President Nasheed is deeply concerned by the actions of the Judicial Service Commission to summon the Chief Judge of the High Court, who also presides over President Nasheed’s case contesting the legitimacy of the JSC appointed Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench. Actions such as these are seen as thinly veiled attempts at influencing the Judiciary.

President Nasheed’s spokesperson, Mariya Did stated, ‘we condemn the actions of the Maldivian courts, which violate the electoral rights of nearly 50,000 Maldivian Democratic Party members. Today’s disruption to President Nasheed’s campaign trip to Raa atoll is an unnecessary, politically motivated challenge. The JSC continues to try and cover up the unconstitutional manner in which they appointed the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench through attempts at influencing the judiciary, while the Courts create logistical challenges such as today’s.  However, it does not stop affect the spirit of President Nasheed’s campaign.’

A comprehensive report on the Maldivian Judiciary compiled by Gabriella Knaul, United National Special Rapporteur for Independence of Judges and Lawyers, published on 21 May states,  ‘the trial of the former President [Nasheed] raises serious concerns regarding the fairness of proceedings.  She believes that the constitutionality of the Hulhumalé Court is questionable and that the bench of judges which was constituted to hear Mr. Nasheed’s case also seems to have been set up in an arbitrary manner, without following procedures set by law.’

Statement on the Judges Panel Appeal Hearing at the High Court

The Maldives High Court adjourns the court appeal hearing held on Thursday after assuring that reasonable time will be provided for President Nasheed’s legal team to examine the minutes of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) meetings which were submitted to the High Court today.

At the hearing today, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) stated that the case could not be heard at the High Court as the JSC acquired advice from the Supreme Court when convening the panel of judges to the Hulhumale’ Magistrates’ Court in order to preside over criminal proceedings against President Nasheed at the Court.

Mariya Didi, President Nasheed’s spokesperson said: “It is strange that the JSC’s legal counsel contested jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the case on the grounds that they had sought the advice of the Supreme Court in determining the bench”

“Recently, when eight judges of the High Court bench filed a complaint at the JSC claiming that the High Court had not followed procedure in accepting President Nasheed’s appeal and granting stay to Hulhumale’ Magistrates’ Court proceedings, the JSC had rejected it on what we understood the grounds to be as the matter should be heard in Court. We did ask for an adjournment to prepare our response to their procedural issue. The Court said they would give us time to prepare for our response and adjourned the hearing” Mariya explained.

Speaker of Parliament and member of the JSC, Abdullah Shahid and JSC member appointed by the public, Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman recently gave testimony to the Independent Commissions Oversight Committee at Parliament, reaffirming that in their view the judges’ panel was convened unconstitutionally.

President Nasheed’s Office Welcomes Report by the The United Kingdom’s Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC)

The United Kingdom’s Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) has expressed “serious concern” over the appointment of judges by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) in President Nasheed’s ongoing trial. The BHRC has conducted several independent trial observations of proceedings in the politically motivated trial against President Nasheed. The report by BHRC, provides a detailed overview of the state of the Maldivian judiciary and the political context in the lead up to Nasheed’s forced resignation and prosecution. Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, the BHRC Executive Committee member raised concerns regarding the appointment process stating in the report, “if accurate, suggest egregious unconstitutional behaviour by the JSC in selecting the judicial bench to hear Mr Nasheed’s case.”

President Nasheed maintains that the charges are a politically motivated attempt to prevent him from contesting in the Presidential elections later this year. President Nasheed’s legal team continues to challenge both the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s jurisdiction, and the JSC’s appointment of judges to the case. The JSC itself includes several of Nasheed’s direct political opponents, including rival presidential candidate, businessman and Parliamentarian, Gasim Ibrahim.

Ghrálaigh states that given concerns about the JSC’s politicisation and the “serious questions” concerning its appointment of judges to the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, “it is perhaps surprising that the court should have decided of its own motion (“ex proprio motu”) to deny the request made by Mr Nasheed’s legal team to postpone the proceedings until after the elections, in the absence of any objection by the prosecuting authorities to such an adjournment.”

“The BHRC further notes the view inside and outside the Maldives that the failure by the institutions of the State, in particular the JSC, properly to implement constitutionally mandated reforms to create an impartial judiciary, independent from political pressures, and the failure properly to investigate and/or sanction allegations of egregious, unlawful and/or unconstitutional judicial conduct, have served significantly to derail the State’s transition to a functioning constitutional democracy,”

Ghrálaigh also noted that the JSC was “also subject to significant criticism for its failure properly to oversee individual complaints against individual judges. One judge against whom a number of serious complaints were levied was Judge Abdulla, accused inter alia of “implicat[ion] in 14 cases of obstruction of policy duty”, including “strategically delaying cases involving opposition [Gayoom loyalist] members”, “twist[ing] and interpret[ing] laws so they could not be enforced against certain politicians”, “accepting bribes to release convicts”13 and “hijack[ing] the whole court”.

The JSC, responsible for the reappointment of judges including Judge Abdulla in 2010 at the conclusion of the constitutional interim period, “failed properly ‘to fulfill its constitutional mandate of proper vetting and reappointing of judicial candidates’, a failure regarding which, international bodies, including the International Commission of Jurists, have expressed concern,” she added. “Consequently, the Maldivian judiciary remains largely unchanged since the country’s transition to a constitutional democracy: the vast majority of judges in office, including Judge Abdulla, are political appointees of former President Gayoom, and many still lack any formal training in law.”

The trial against Nasheed was suspended by Chief Judge of the High Court last week pending a ruling into the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court bench’s appointment raised by Nasheed’s legal team. “It is difficult to see how proceedings presided over by a judicial bench, cherrypicked for their likelihood to convict by a highly politicised JSC, which includes a number of Mr Nasheed’s direct political rivals, could in any way be deemed to comply with constitutional and international fair trial rights, including the right to an ‘independent court established by law’,” stated Ghrálaigh, in her concluding remarks.

The High Court appeal into the legitimacy of the HMC bench has been scheduled for tomorrow, despite President Nasheed’s requests for court proceedings to be scheduled with respect to his own itinerary. Members of the international community continue to call upon the Maldivian authorities to ensure the credibility of the upcoming Presidential elections, emphasizing the need for an inclusive, free and fair election

President Nasheed Condemns Police Harassment Against His Lawyer and her Spouse

President Nasheed expresses grave concerns and condemns Police intimidation towards Ms. Hisaan Hussain, a member of his legal team and her Spouse.

Hisaan Hussain, the leading Defense Counsel in President Nasheed’s case pending in Hulhumale Magistrate Court was in Hithadhoo, Addu City at a family event with her husband when the Police conducted a search in the area. When Hisaan questioned the police, they were informed the search was conducted under the Law relating to Gang Violence. Hisaan’s husband was detained when he questioned the Police’s actions. Hisaan was subsequently detained after she questioned their disproportionate response and asserted that she was a lawyer. The police shoved Hisaan (24 weeks pregnant) twice and she fell the second time and was unable to get up without assistance. The police also brutalized her husband during the arrest. The police punched him on the face and screamed obscenities at President Nasheed. Both have now been released.

“We see it as pure harassment. The Police are trying to intimidate lawyers who represent the MDP and President Nasheed. It is extremely disturbing that the police have again displayed their complete disregard to the law. I am deeply disturbed by how Hisaan, who is pregnant was treated by the Police. We urge the Police & the Police Integrity Commission to look into the matter and take urgent action against those officers who continue to violate the law & brutalise Women,” said Mariya Didi (MP), President Nasheed’s spokesperson.

ENDS

President Nasheed’s Legal Team to File Appeal at High Court Regarding HMC’s Refusal to Grant Trial Delay till After Presidential Elections

President Nasheed’s legal team will file an appeal at the High Court today, regarding the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s decision to refuse President Nasheed’s request to delay his trial until after the Presidential elections in September.

On Wednesday, 6 March, President Nasheed appeared at Hulhumale Magistrate Court under Police custody. President Nasheed’s legal team requested that his trial be delayed till after the Presidential elections, to which the Prosecution posed no objection.  Despite this, the Hulhumale Magistrate Court decided that the trial should proceed, albeit ruling a delay of four weeks. President Nasheed filed the same request at the Supreme Court, which was also refused.

President Nasheed’s spokesperson Mariya Didi stated, ‘an appeal was submitted to the Supreme Court asking them to delay President Nasheed’s trial till after the elections. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, I believe on the grounds that it was not a constitutional issue and hence has to go through the normal appeal procedure. We are now appealing the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s decision at the High Court on the grounds that once the Prosecutor has no objection to the delay of the trial till after the election, there is no reason why the Court should grant four weeks but refuse to grant President Nasheed’s request to delay his trial till after the elections.’

Members of the international community have repeatedly questioned the credibility of the upcoming Presidential elections should President Nasheed, the chosen candidate of the Maldivian Democratic Party be prevented from contesting.

High Court Legitimises Injustice

The Maldives High Court today ruled that the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court is a legitimate court. In an unanimous decision, the High Court bench ruled against the appeal filed by President Nasheed and upheld the precedent set by the Supreme Court in December 2012. President Nasheed stated, ‘today’s judgement by the Maldives High Court clearly means I will not be allowed a fair trial.’ President Nasheed’s legal team have stated that they will be filing an appeal at the Supreme Court.

Immediately following today’s ruling, President Nasheed was served summons to attend the Hulhumale’ Magistrate court on 10 February.

President Nasheed’s spokesperson Mariya Didi said, ‘In a move which looked very much as if the Courts are following the instructions of the Government, the High Court ruled the Hulhumale’ Court as legal after holding only two successive hearings to conclude the case. It now seems as if the Hulhumale’ Court had prepared summons before the High Court judgement was even delivered. Today was a travesty of justice and demonstrates how much President Nasheed’s case is a politically motivated trial.’

Mariya Didi also noted the international concern regarding the state of the Maldivian judiciary and the fairness of President Nasheed’s trial, drawing reference to the concluding remarks of the United National Human Rights Committee report issued in July 2012. ‘The Committee is deeply concerned about the state of the judiciary in the Maldives. ‘The state has admitted that this body’s independence is seriously compromised.’

END

Please see the following statements for more information on the appeal filed by President Nasheed

http://www.ccprcentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/MALDIVES-7.13.12_v2.pdf

President Nasheed Appeals High Court to Prevent National Injustice

President Nasheed’s Legal Team Urges to Ensure a Fair Judicial Process

President Nasheed Expresses Concerns Over Supreme Court Case on Hulhumale’ Court

The Office of President Mohamed Nasheed Expresses Regret Over the Decisions of the Supreme Court on the Case Challenging the Legality of the Hulhumale’ Court

Press Statement on President Nasheed’s Trial

President Nasheed Appeals High Court to Prevent National Injustice

The third hearing of President Nasheed’s High Court appeal challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court was held today. President Nasheed’s legal team reiterated their initial basis for filing the appeal, restating the procedural issues of the case filed against President Nasheed at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

In light of the Supreme Court ruling legitimising the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court, President Nasheed’s legal team argued on the principle of per incuriam, citing that a lower court need not abide a legal precedent established by a higher tier court, if that precedent was set unlawfully or without reference to an existing legal provision or statute.

President Nasheed stated to the High Court that a resolution of the procedural issues raised by his appeal is essential to ensure a just trial. He further stated that an unjust trial would not just affect him, but thousands of Maldivians who elected him as their Presidential candidate. He expressed hope that the trial against him would be just and follow due process.

The High Court will rule on President Nasheed’s appeal tomorrow morning.

END