It is surprising how fast things change in a heated political scene. When I wrote my last article, what led Judge Abdulla to Girifushi, I still had a glimmer of hope that the Government may be able to get out of the hole they have dug themselves into.

With regret it does not seem to be the case. This is where I seriously wonder who is advising the President on political and legal matters and to who’s advice he takes.

The leaked audio of the President’s addressed to MNDF personnel, has dashed my hopes of seeing an early closure to the crisis. It is evident from the content and tone, that the President does not even consider that his government may have been wrong in this case. Instead he is preparing for a bigger confrontation and the purpose of the speech is obvious.

He criticised the Judicial Service Commission regarding the confirmation of the Judges who held office prior the the enactment of the New Constitution and disclosed his intention of withholding their salaries and not enforcing the judgments of these judges. [The enforcement of Court Judgements are a sworn duty of the Maldives Police Service, regardless of the consent of the executive.]

The President is likely referring to Chapter XIV of the Constitution on Transitional Matters. He stressed that he was not a lawyer and that he was acting on the legal advice he has received. He did not mention that The Peoples Majlis could not be elected as stipulated in the Constitution. It is clear that the writers had put utmost importance on meeting the dates specified in the Transitional chapter, as they had put in a clause that no amendment to the Constitution can be made until, the newly elected Majlis sat.

Though the dates passed, a solution acceptable to all stake holders was found for the election of the new parliament.

In his Radio address of 27th January 2012 (today), he stated :

“The Supreme Court Judges were appointed in accordance with the Constitution and law. The High Court bench was appointed in accordance with the Constitution and law.

However, it is hard to say that the lower court Judges were appointed as per the Constitution and law,” added the President

JSC was tasked with the appointment of judges in accordance with a vetting criterion established under a statute relating to the Judges, JSC had reappointed judges before the parliament approved the required statute.

In his own words, he is accepting the Supreme Court and High Court as appointed accordance with the Law, hence if the President was so concerned about the decision of the JSC:

Why didn’t he direct the Attorney General to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court?

Why were the judgements of the same judges enforced by the relevant government authorities since 27^th July 2010 when the JSC voted for the confirmations?

What has changed so much in the Judiciary in the last 6 months for this drastic action?

And most of all, why is his Government not heeding to the Orders of the Supreme Court and High Court?

His argument that the JSC was tasked with appointment of Judges in accordance with a vetting criterion established under a statute relating to the Judges may be how we would like to have it. However it is not specified as clearly in the Constitution. In fact Article 148 – Appointment of Judges does not even mention the word “law”. However Article 149 – Qualification of Judges (a) states

A person appointed as a Judge in accordance with law,  must possess the educational qualifications, experience and recognized competence necessary to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a Judge, and must be of high moral character.

The JSC on 4th August 2010 made a public announcement giving the legal grounds for their action. I am not even going to try to justify who is right or wrong.

It is clearly a matter of the Executive and the JSC reading the same Article to mean different ways, hence it is very clear that the next avenue if to be sought any further, would have been the Supreme Court, which is the institution the Constitution has given the final say. So once again I have to ask you, Sir, if you felt so strongly about this why didn’t you take this matter to the Supreme Court? 

H.E. President Nasheed. The army barrack is not the right forum to address or discuss this issue. You are not getting the best legal advice. Please get better legal advice and re consider your stand for the sake of this nation, and address this issue through the Supreme Court and the Parliament.

At the same time, almost everyone who is not aligned to the ruling MDP, including some within the Government, most notably the Vice President disagrees. Their view is that the arrest/abduction or whatever the correct word to be used to the incident of Judge Abdulla Mohamed taken away from his home at midnight, is illegal and contravenes the Constitution. While those who are on this side of the debate are pointing out article by article and relevant laws to justify their stand, the Government’s stand is but one, that the President is the Head of State and the overseer of the Constitution, hence has the authority to do whatever necessary to protect the Constitution. Even the Attorney General has failed to come up with a reasonable legal justification citing relevant laws.

Does the Constitution need protection?

As everything else in Aneh Dhivehi Rajje (The Other Maldives promised by Pr.Nasheed), it all depends on who you ask. The Opposition, regardless of party would say no, and anyone associated with MDP would say yes. It may not be as straight forward.

What is the danger? The State as per the 2008 Constitution consists of three arms of the State, The Executive, The Legislature and The Judiciary. If any one of this fails, the chances of following the Constitution gets lower and lower. We have a problem in the Judiciary.

In this case, the strongest arguments and lobbying was and is done by the former member of Judicial Services Commission (the watch dog for the Judiciary), Ms.Aishath Velezinee. I have not seen anyone else focused solely on this purpose long before Abdulla Mohamed became a familiar name in Maldivian households. She has been advocating and trying her best to reach the public as much as she can, to a level where it can be even said fanatical,  giving clear arguments justifying her stand. Had some action been taken on what she presented, we will probably not be in this situation today.

Article 285.

(a) All Judges in office at the commencement of this Constitution except for the Chief Justice shall continue in office until such time as a determination pursuant to this Article.

(b) The Judicial Service Commission established pursuant to Article 157 of this Constitution, shall within two years of the commencement of this Constitution determine whether or not the Judges in office at the said time, possess the qualification of Judges specified in Article 149.

(c) Where it is determined as provided in article (b) that a Judge does not possess a qualification or the qualifications specified in Article 149, such Judge shall cease to hold office.

(d) Where it is determined as provided in article (b)that a Judge possesses the qualifications specified in Article 149, such Judge shall be appointed as a Judge under this Constitution.

(e) Except as provided in article (c), Judges may only be removed from office as specified in Article 154 of this Constitution

Velezinee’s point, from very early on has been about Article 285 of the Constitution. She even started a Facebook page dedicated to educate people on why the Article 285 was important, and why it was so important to vet the Judges being confirmed. Once confirmed, a Judge will be in the bench for life, unless removed through the required legal procedures. This was as much of a challenge as impeaching the President, probably more so.

This is the point where I note, the conflict between the Judiciary and the Executive started. Ms.Velezinee was the President’s appointed member, and she was not satisfied on the criteria set by the JSC This is obvious as Pr.Nasheed wrote to JSC on 27^th May 2010, requesting them to re-think the criteria for re-appointment of Judges, and from her various interviews and writings around that time.

The Confirmation of Judges.

2nd Aug 2010 – Oath taking ceremony of the reconfirmed Judges.

However, the JSC did not reconsider the criteria, and went ahead for a vote, which passed 5-4. On June 7^th 2010, Velezinee’s blog indicates that the deciding vote was controversial . However one of the points I noted most was the comment “The ‘criteria’ JSC has announced would pass them all as having the Good Character expected of a judge despite criminal records of fraud, sexual offences, etc…” in her blog. In the original report I saw that these were covered under Section 4 under 29 different offences listed in JSC’s criteria on Character. However this section was amended on 27^th July 2010, roughly translated to read as following.

If any Judge has been convicted of a crime stipulated in Article 149 (b) 3, [has not been convicted of an offence for which a hadd is prescribed in Islam, criminal breach of trust, or bribery.], he will be considered not to have met the standards of Good Character.

For other past criminal convictions and/or investigations, disciplinary actions by a Government Agency, the Commission will decide on a case to case basis.

The JSC published a 12 page legal justification on their stand. Read it here if you have the time.

The Peoples Majlis

If any one body can be pointed out, The Peoples Majlis , should probably be accountable to the Maldivian public for the current crisis. A large part of the current sitting Majlis Members were part of the Special Majlis, who drafted and voted for the current Constitution, and should understand why each and every point of Article 149 and 285 were included, and what they wanted to achieve. Individual Members were made aware of what was happening and the Majlis President sits in the JSC. They could have taken steps earlier on, before the confirmations. They could have amended the Constitution limiting the period of transitional judges to a reasonable time, for proper vetting to be carried out. Did they really want 5 of the 9 members of JSC to be able to decide on which Judges can sit in our new Judiciary, regardless of having a conviction, and give judgements despite having a criminal conviction? I don’t think so.

What has been done is done. It is quite clear, that something has gone wrong in the way the Judges were confirmed for life! The Executive has been given the burden of maintaining peace and harmony with a Judiciary antagonised at the Government for trying to restrict their confirmations. I would not say the actions of the JSC were against the Constitution, but it definitely is not ethical as far as I am concerned, and goes against the principles of why Article 285 was written.

The Majlis is the only place which can rectify this. They can change the law, and if necessary amend the Constitution. I am confident, given proof of wrong doing of the Judges in question; the Government will be able to gather enough support to pass an amendment.

Arrogance will not work in this situation. Most educated people in Maldives believe that the Government acted against our Laws and Constitution. The Government also need to accept that the majority of the people on the streets are not to over throw the Government, but expressing their Constitutional right in demanding freedom for Judge Abdulla Mohamed who was arrested in violation of his Constitutional rights. His action as a Judge or as an individual does not give the Government a licence to violate the Constitution.

Having said that I am sure there will be people like me who truly sympathise the Government for the position they have been forced into.

*************************

Article 149. Qualification of Judges.

(a) A person appointed as a Judge in accordance with law, must possess the educational qualifications, experience and recognized competence necessary to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a Judge, and must be of high moral character.

(b) In addition to the qualifications specified in article (a), a Judge shall possess the following qualifications:-

1. be a Muslim and a follower of a Sunni school of Islam;

2. be twenty-five years of age;

3. has not been convicted of an offence for which a hadd is prescribed in Islam, criminal breach of trust, or bribery;

4. be of sound mind.

(c) A person appointed to be a Judge of the Supreme Court, shall be at least thirty years of age; possess at least seven years experience as a Judge or practicing lawyer or both as a Judge and a practicing lawyer, and must be educated in Islamic Shari’ah or law.

(d) The People’s Majlis shall pass a statute relating to Judges.

The members of the Judicial Service Commission (26/7/2009)

- Mr Abdulla Shahid, Speaker of the People’s Majlis
- Uz Mujthaz Fahumy, a Judge of the Supreme Court elected by the judges of the Supreme
- Uz Abdul Ghanee Mohamed, a Judge of the High Court elected by the judges of the High Court
- Mr Abdulla Didi, a Judge of the Trial Courts elected by the judges of the Trial Courts
- Dr Afrasheem Ali, a Member of the People’s Majlis appointed by it
- Sh. Shuaib Abdul Rahman, member of the general public, appointed by the People’s Majlis
- Dr. Mohamed Latheef, President of the Civil Service Commission
- Ms Aishath Velezinee, member appointed by the President
- Uz Husnu Suood , Attorney General

Most people are reluctant to given opinions openly because of the fear of being summoned to the Ministry of Defence, Rather than adulation, the Government will benefit more with constructive criticism.

Click the link to download.

Following is the statement from Human Rights Commission of Maldives today. The Commission failed to note the most important fact that Judge Abdulla Mohamed human rights as ascertained and published in their website are being violated.

Freedom from arbitrary arrest or exile

Among Human Rights ascertained, all the rights enshrined in the Bill of rights of the Maldives Constitution are also included.

STATEMENT FROM HCRM

Human Rights Commission of the Maldives has this morning (20th January 2012) met with and inquired about the wellbeing of the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Mr. Abdullah Mohamed who was detained by the Maldives National Defense Force. The meeting at Kaafu Atoll Girifushi, the premise where he is being detained, fulfills the prerequisite of the Human Rights Commission as mandated in the HRCM Act as well as the duties and responsibilities at the National Preventive Mechanism of the Maldives. This includes the ascertainment that people detained under State care are in satisfactory condition and their basic human rights are respected and fulfilled and that no inhumane and degrading treatment has taken place against the person detained.

The meeting confirmed that Mr. Abdullah Mohamed was in good health and that his basic needs were met with proficiency. The meeting also ensured that he had not suffered from any form of degrading or inhumane treatment or torture whilst under the detention of the Defense Force.

This is a comment which I saw in Minivan News, back in 2006. Five years on, it still makes so much sense and as good a read. I have saved this and share it, with much appreciation and thanks to the original writer who is unknown.

As an ‘independent’ (by which I mean indecisive and even a little spineless) observer of the developments in our little tea-cup of a country, I felt its time to come in and make a few suggestions to both sides of the great political divide.
The chances that anybody would actually listen or heed to this advice from a self-confessed coward like me is of course, unlikely. But I hope I can at least speak on behalf of the thousands of other pusillanimous [1] observers of this great political competition being played out on our beautiful shores.
Because you see, I am starting to get a little tired of the way in which this match is currently being performed. I know what they say about ‘all’s fair in love and war’ but without at least some set of rules, no game is really that enjoyable to watch. So for the sake of us spectators, I humbly ask all parties (in all sense of the word) to try and stick to the following set of rules. Or else you might find that us spectators lose interest in both teams, and as any good team knows, you are nothing without the spectators.

Rule no. 1 – The Name Calling
Let’s try and be civil with the names. Words such as Golhaaboa (what does that mean anyway?), or ending with the word “R**di”, or words such as “Koru” and other things that refer to physical disabilities of a person is really out of order. Let’s try and keep to more civilized insults, or at least some kind of intelligent and sarcastic/satirical remarks that we can use in front of our parents or children. For example, the term “Loan Star” is a pun worthy of the British Tabloids and highly appropriate.
And in the same light, please note that attaching faces of prominent members of society onto the bodies of girls or Hitler or Donald Duck, or attaching faces of the wives of political leaders on naked women stopped being funny to the average reader about the same time as when they started getting hair in funny places of their body. This is especially tiresome as most of these pictures are done in such a shoddy, semi-amateur fashion. To these ‘graphic artists’, I kindly urge you to please spend your time reading a book, or going for a jog, or even trying to figure out the answer to this riddle: “what is at the start of everything, at the end of everywhere, and right in front of your eyes?”. (answer at the end)

Rule no. 2 – Illegal Sex and Alcohol
Lets face it, over the many years, BOTH teams in the match have players who have enjoyed their (and other peoples’) share of alcohol and illicit sex. Sure it’s despicable, and sure it shouldn’t have been done, but for the sake of saving your own teams from much embarrassment, lets just all agree between the two teams that you won’t talk about this issue.
And frankly, the spectators don’t really care that much about it either (or at least we shouldn’t do so). It might mean those who have done these acts will be barbequed to bits in Hell, but on the grand scale of things, there are a lot more important issues to discuss (see Rule no. 4). But please, leave the bedrooms and bar-rooms out of this. Or else, we may follow in the footsteps of America, and change political events on the basis of one man’s private affairs, only to find ourselves (and the rest of the world) being governed by the village idiot of Texas.

Rule no. 3 – Leave God out of this
There already is a party in the Maldives that has made God their most important spokesman, and while the other major two players must ensure basic compliance with God, it is also important that they leave Him out of the match. To say that He supports one party and not the other is too much of a presumption for us mere mortals to make (in fact its not even clear to us what He would have to say on the party that supposedly is there to represent His interests). When we look into the real heart of the matter, both parties have saints and sinners (see Rule no.2). But generally the majority of the players in the two teams are non-fundamentalist Moslems who pray most of the prayers of the day, give alms to the poor, fast during Ramazaan, have probably gone to Hajj on at least one occasion and generally believe in the greatness of Allah. Instead of making it an issue, let’s be quietly grateful for that.
And on this note, don’t think that simply because one party has made a few friends with people from other religions, be it Buddhists, Christians or Scientologists, that their agenda is the complete conversion of our country to these religions. And even if we are surrounded by countries with these agendas[2], don’t think that we the observers are now obligated to cheer for the other team or else we will unknowingly end up wearing crosses around our necks and saying Hail Mary all the time. We might be a little too scared to come out onto the field and take part in your match, but that doesn’t mean we’re stupid either.

Rule no. 4 – It’s the economy…stupid

Let’s take the above saying from Bappa Bush (when asked about why he lost the 1992 election to Cigar Clinton) into our hearts when talking about politics.

I think everyone has a basic understanding of how the country’s economy is doing, and ultimately this is what concerns us most. Although perhaps number one on your list of concerns may be whether Chelsea will once again win the EPL, this is quite quickly followed by worries about income, the cost of living (or at least having to pay for tea after Thursday night football), employment opportunities, and other issues generally concerning the so called ‘root-of-all-evil’: money. So lets try and make at least 20% – (actually maybe that’s too much – lets say 10%), of all our talk regarding politics based around these issues.

I don’t just mean that we should now start making loans (be it soft or hard) or corruption the most important factor in our discussions. The sad fact of the matter is that some degree of corruption will always exist, and has always existed in all societies. And the greatest developmental achievers of the century (Japan, Korea, South-East Asian countries, and now China) have developed despite having much greater levels of corruption than ours – not to mention the most democratic countries is the world (India and USA) are also some of the most corrupt.

No, it is not these issues of money that concern me, but rather on focusing the political debate of the country seriously around real issues like what kind of industries should we invest in, how can we ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth, and whether a drive towards increasing equity would lead to lower levels of growth. Should we for example introduce an income tax so that the people would feel the money spent by the government is actually their money – instead of being taxed indirectly through V.A.T or import tax? If so how can this system be managed in a country such as ours? How can we make medical care and education more affordable, or is it underpriced right now anyway? What would we do regarding unemployment – should we make it more difficult to hire foreign workers, should we provide tax benefits for local companies that hire Maldivians? Or is the problem of unemployment a supply-side issue – that we simply are failing in training our youth to the needs of our economy? The answer to such questions cannot just be ‘less corruption, freedom of press, and the right kind of multi-party democracy’.

You see because democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech may, for some, be ends in themselves, but for most, democracy by itself does not make us happy – just ask the millions of Indians who enjoy it but are still out begging on the streets. There have been many democratic revolutions in the world, but having a revolution by itself does not ensure that what follows is anything better than the previous ages. It is the crucial problem for liberals that in 1945, China (the Dictator) and India (the Democrat) were on very similar socio-economic status, but 60 years down the line the average livelihood of the Dictator’s people are better than that of the Democrat. Now as the indecisive supporter, I’m not saying which of these Ds are better, but I can tell you that these are major philosophical contests of our times that even the greatest thinkers of our time cannot reach a definite conclusion on.

So my last suggestion to you is to think two steps ahead, i.e. when our beloved party system is actually established, when no prisoners are tortured in prisons, when everybody stops drinking alcohol and having extra-marital sex, ask yourself…. “what now?”. Because the fact is, as much as we would like to be otherwise, we remain a very small group of people, on an even smaller bit of land, with very few resources, a very fragile environment dependent on an even more fragile tourism industry, and a real need for fresh ideas on how to take this bokkura of a nation into the stormy waters of the twenty first century.
And so, for the sake of us spectators, before you go out onto the streets again, and onto the pitch to start the greatest match of our times, delve deep into your mind on these and other important issues and suggest some fresh ideas. Because you see, unlike any other kind of sporting event, in the game of politics, it is us spectators who should ultimately decide the final outcome.

p.s. (answer to the riddle = the letter E)
Footnotes:
[1] The meaning of this fantastic word is the same as the unprintable word that forms the first two syllables of this word

[2] Which by the way is incredibly likely because after all the Maldives has such a large and influential population, and are such an important and powerful body in International scene, and it is common knowledge that Tony Blair and George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice all get together once a week to ensure that this important country convert to Christianity and finally provide them with the crucial international credibility for their “war on terror”!!!

The Stanford Prison Experiment led by Prof.Emeritus of Psychology (Stanford University) Philip Zimbardo is until today the most extensive research done by psychologists to study the effects of imprisonment and also the effects of working as prison guards.

Mistreatment of prisoners is common in every country of the world. There is no distinction from the most developed country to the least developed when it comes to mistreatment of prisoners. The prisoner abuse by US Troops in Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq was committed by personnel of the most disciplined force in the world.

Prof. Philip Zimbardo’s study used the basement of Stanford University converted as the Prison and the guards and well as the prisoners were chosen from volunteer. The researchers selected normal, healthy, good kids that they found through ads in the papers. They were not Stanford students, but kids from all over the United States who were in the Bay Area finishing summer school. A hundred kids applied, the researchers interviewed them, and gave them personality tests. They picked the two dozen who were the most normal, most healthy kids.

Within a few days, those that were assigned to the guard role, became abusive, red-necked prison guards. Every day the level of hostility, abuse, and degradation of the prisoners became worse and worse and worse. Within 36 hours the first prisoner had an emotional breakdown, crying, screaming, and thinking irrationally. The researchers had to release him, and each day after that they had to release another prisoner because of extreme stress reactions. The study was supposed to run for two weeks, but they ended it after six days because it was literally out of control. Kids chosen because they were normal and healthy were breaking down. Kids who were pacifists were acting sadistically, taking pleasure in inflicting cruel, evil punishment on prisoners. That study has legs even today, especially because of the recent exposure of abuses in the Iraqi prison, Abu Ghraib and others around the world.

The study also showed that it was the “good guards” who maintained the prison. It was the guards on the shift where you had the worst abuses who never did anything bad to the prisoners, but not once, over the whole week, did they ever go to one of the bad guards and say, “What are you doing? We get paid the same money without knocking ourselves out.” Or, “Hey, remember those are college students, not prisoners.” No good guard ever intervened once to stop the activities of the bad guards. No good guard ever came a minute late, left a minute early, or publicly complained. In a sense, then, it’s the good guard who allows this to happen. It’s the good parent who allows a spouse to abuse their children without opposing it. That’s something that’s really important for us to consider.

Above are just a few lines from the study. For those of you who are really concerned in our prison system, and want to contribute to improve it would find the link in the first paragraph extremely useful. Though this study was done in 1971, every single fact is being repeated around the world, including this nation.

Crime is on the rise, and we cannot be blind to the fact that the prison population in Maldives will only grow. We as citizens forget about the people who commit crimes once they are off our turf. However, it is a fact that these people are being held off our faces by being locked up in a limited space, often for long periods with nothing much to do. At the same time, there are those from within us who work to run the prison system. They face each and every one of them who we do not want to see even once, every single day. The prison staff from guards to doctors faces daily verbal abuse and other harassment from inmates as part of their jobs. Slowly but surely even the “normal” man will start showing sadistic behavior.

There are steps that can be taken to improve the situation. Reducing inmates per cell, preferably to one or two per cell, minimizing contact with prisoners and guards could be a first step. This first step will not be easy as we do not have a prison built with this in mind, and most nations do not. The success of North Brach Correctional Institution is the United States which houses some of the most dangerous criminals in US, should be something worth looking at. The first phase of the prison is now complete and inmates who used to spend 23 hrs in single cells can now enjoy more freedom. The guards are also under watch due to 24 hrs surveillance of the whole facility, and with hardly any contact with guards and prisoners, chances of abuse or mistreatment are minimized.

In order to live in a society free from crime, the community has to pay a price. We need a modern facility to house convicted people where they can be rehabilitated and able to join the society as decent people. In order to achieve this, no price is too high to pay. To build a modern new prison and train guards, counselors will cost a lot, but wouldn’t it be worth the investment to get back the youth of this country?

A nominated Member of Parliament is not something which has been practiced by Maldives alone. It is still practiced in a lot of democracies around the world. What is the reason that brought so much negative thoughts to this practice?

The practice of Nominated Members of Parliament has been completely misused through out the rule of both President Nasir and Prsident Maumoon. The theory of giving a limited number of seats for nominated MPs was to enable representation of the most underrepresented part of the community in any Parliament, and also to ensure there were sufficient technocrats in the Parliament. However this had not been the use it was utilized for. In addition, countries which practice the system have a number of checks to ensure that these seats cannot be misused.

Singapore had Nominated Members of Parliament which was increased to nine in 1997. The nominees are selected by a Parliamentary select committee headed by the Speaker of Parliament. It is also a requirement that Nominated members do not belong to any Political Party.

In India, 12 MPs are nominated by the President, from people having special knowledge in literature, science or social services.

In both examples, these Members while being nominated MPs, cannot be sacked by the Executive, just like elected MPs. This enables them to take part in an unbiased manner, and not toe the Government line. From the next Parliament, Maldives will not have nominated MPs, hence any under represented people will continue to be so. A good example is Adhaalath Party. While having a considerable membership in total, they may not have sufficient in a single constituency to win a seat. However, in total they represent a significant percentage of the electorate to deserve representation in Parliament. The negative aspects which played in our nation was the main factor which resulted in Nominated MPs from being removed in the New Constitution. Sadly this is something which could have been used for the people and rather than removing it, there could have been strict guidelines for nominations, so that we will have a better represented Parliament.

The (New) Constitution is silent on the issue of the remaining Nominated MPs during the transition and both sides (MDP and DRP) are taking opposing views. The Constitution clearly does not give authority of appointing an MP to the President, however he has done it. The President’s nominations seem to have followed the old guard in nominating people who are from his Party and Alliance. I expected a well read person of Nasheed’s caliber to do better. While being a controversial issue, he could have won the respect of many if he had nominated 8 prefessionals who were Independents. During a period when our Parliament is undertaking some of its most important Bills, this action shows that President Nasheed also gives more priority to his Party than the People.

Nasheed has an uphill task in front of him. He inherits a Government which is still full of officials at all levels used to doing favours and getting favours in return. He also gets a Civil Service which is still in its infancy, but created from the old bureaucracy where services and efficiency was not their first priority. The world is in recession as we who depend on European tourists for our main source of income, are facing one of the biggest challenges since the tourism industry’s beginning. While there is an apparent calm after the elections, he also helms a nation which is almost divided in half.

Nasheed has just over 75 days to win over the public before the nation goes to poll again. This election is as important as the Presidential Elections if not more. The excesses during Maumoon’s Presidency and all its shortcomings continued not because we did not have a Constitution, but because the Parliament was merely a rubber stamp for the Executive. Most of what we see today was indeed within reach had our elected Members of Parliament were willing to serve their electorate instead of their own selves. Nasheed’s performance and policies will determine how MDP will do in the polls. If MDP does not win a majority in the Parliament, the President will find himself under more pressure from his partners of convenience.

Maldivians have by a vast majority chosen a Presidential system of Government. However the current system, (even prior to Nasheed’s inauguration) looks as though a Parliamentary System is being followed. The common goal of changing Maumoon’s Government is a good enough reason for the Opposition Parties to support Nasheed during the run off, however the “Alliance” may not be the best idea. Once elected, the Consitution gives full executive power to the President and it is not acceptable to a lot of the voters that the President be pressured into making appointments. One of the reasons why Maldivians chose a Presidential system, was to enable the President to be able to select his Cabinet and Political appointees based on merit and capability rather than a person’s political beliefs. The day we see appointments like these, would be the day we see maturity in our politicians.

I wish President Nasheed success in his endeavor to give the people of Maldives a better tomorrow. I also believe that he is politically mature enough to know who are with him to back his beliefs.

When Ibra’s blog came out, I made a comment on the subject in his entry “Hypocrisy Defined” .My basic question was:

“Article 116 is one which I have noticed that is not high lighted in yellow, but the Article has changed very much from advising the Parliament, to approval from the Parliament.”

He referred me to his reply under a separate entry “Cabinet Debacle and 116”. However, I could not agree to Ibra’s interpretation hence wrote another comment.

Dear Ibra,

Thanks to “Cabinet Debacle and 116″, which you have directed me as your answer to my question.

You are not very straight forward here.

Quote:

the wording of which was very ambiguous (in the context of the constitution), because on the one hand it said the President had the power to create Ministries, but he should submit the decision to parliament.

Unquote

The version passed is not ambiguous, it is still available for down load, and it is not the decision to be submitted. 116(h) clearly gives the power to create a Ministry and allocate its work to the President. It required the President to submit the INFORMATION (Mauloomaath) to the majlis, not the decision.

The problem with most of our MPs is they have taken this as a vendetta against Maumoon. I respect that you have the honesty to admit it, few will. This is one reason that there are so many short comings of the Constitution which took 4 years in the making.

The way I see it, this was more of Qasim’s doing than anyone else. If amendments which changed the substance of any Article were voted for this debate would not have been there.

The Hansard shows that Riyaz did take a Point of Order but was asked to sit in the middle of what he was asking. These are all in the public archive, and while I believe that this was wrong, I am willing to let history judge the participants.

July 30, 2008 4:22:00 PM MVT

For this comment included in his reply was :

“By the way, your interpretation of 116 is exactly what the drafting committee wanted to avoid. Besides, you asked me about the yellow highlight, and now you are twisting the argument on to something else!”

I have to respectfully say, no Ibra I am not the one twisting the argument. My original comment was about the change in substance of the Article 116 due to the amendment.

In the last reply, Ibra also wrote :

However, let me put to you this question. If the President had the unfettered power granted in the constitution to create any number of Ministries, and the same Constitution also granted unfettered power to the Majlis to approve or strike down proposed budgets for each Ministry, and the Majlis decided not to allocate any funds for a given Ministry because the Majlis did not agree with the existence of such Ministry, in which institution’s (the President’s or the Majlis’s) favour should the Supreme Court rule?

This clearly shows that the change is substantial and was made because there were some Members who believed that this is the better way.

Article 116 when first submitted to the Special Majlis gave the power to create Ministries to the Parliament and it was not accepted by the Majority. This was changed to give that power to the President and the Article was passed.

In addition, the information of the two systems of Government which were distributed to the public made it very clear that in a Presidential System, this power will be with the President. The Presidential System was accepted by an overwhelming majority of the people. Hence the change made is also contrary to the System (Presidential) the Special Majlis was empowered by the people to follow.

The way I see it, the change to Article 116 was not done properly. The argument is not about whether the change is for the better or worse, it is the way it was done. DRP members who command the majority of the Special Majlis have a big burden on their heads. Why did they participate in a block vote if there were changes which they were against? Had they not taken part in the vote, it would not have passed. The excuse of not being aware of the change is not sufficient. It is the duty of the Members to scrutinize the document before voting, and if the time was not enough, they have to demand for more time rather than voting for something which they have not gone through.