Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative draws attention to serious failures of the Maldives government

  This submission from the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative draws attention to serious failures of the Maldives government to make progress on six priority areas identified by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) in February 2016.

CHRI visited the Maldives from 4-7 September, 2016.

CHRI expresses grave apprehension at the continuing and persistent deterioration of human rights, rule of law and democracy in the Maldives.It is clear that the government is not engaging sincerely with the Commonwealth or the United Nations to implement reforms that will

strengthen democratic institutions and enable realization of fundamental rights.

CHRI express concern about the mounting allegations of corruption against officials at the highest political level. The release of “Stealing Paradise”, a documentary by Qatar-based Al Jazeera reveals the involvement of President Yameen and his deputies in massive theft and

money laundering.

The documentary lends weight to previous allegations made by several of President Yameen’s former deputies of his close involvement with criminal gangs in the archipelago. 4 Yet, the government has not shown any inclination to investigate these very serious allegations

and bring the perpetrators to account.

CHRI strongly believes that the current environment is not at all conducive to free and fair presidential elections due in 2018.CHRI is worried that, if allowed to continue, the situation will soon push the island(maldives) nation into the brink of violence and anarchy.

CHRI urges firm action by the Commonwealth, in particular by CMAG, at its 2016 meeting.

 With respect to the six priority areas, we note the following

Political Dialogue:CMAG’s last meeting in April, the United Nations advisor Mr Tamrat Samuel was appointed at the invitation of the government to revive all-party talks.

The government’s lack of commitment and sincerity to the talks has been evident right from the start. President Yameen’s administration refuses to comply with the demand of opposition parties to release jailed political leaders as a way to demonstrate its good will.TheYameen's government has branded the Maldivian United Opposition as unlawful, claiming the coalition has no legal status, as it is not registered as a political party.

On 27 August, 2016, the parliament passed an amendment to the Political Parties Act of

2013 mandating re-registration of all members of political parties using forms requiring fingerprints.The amendment applies retroactively which means parties established before this requirement was first introduced in 2010 will have to submit fingerprints of all members, or face de-registration.These actions not only signal the government’s unwillingness to initiate.political dialogue, but also indicate that the government is taking steps to actively impede and obstruct any kind of political dialogue.

Release of political prisoners: No steps have been taken to enable release of jailed political leaders. The country’s Supreme Court has upheld sentences of several political leaders without responding to arguments and concerns regarding fair trial and due process of law raised by several international bodies including the Commonwealth.

President Nasheed’s conviction wasupheld by the Court on the grounds that his legal rights were protected at the lower courts, he was provided adequate time to prepare his defence, and had been given access to a lawyer. 12 This is in sharp contrast to the observations of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that ruled Nasheed’s imprisonment to be “politically motivated” and “arbitrary” .President Yameen pardoned 169 offenders serving criminal offences under Section 29 of the Clemency Act.

Abuse of Anti-Terrorism Act and other Legislations: In brazen disregard to its commitment to the CMAG, the government of the Maldives continues to persecute political leaders and public officials. Ahmed Mahloof, the only independent member of parliament, was convicted on two consecutive charges of obstruction of duty and sentenced to 10 months and 24 days in jail.Vice President Ahmed Adeeb was convicted on two counts of terrorism with a cumulative sentence of up to 25 years. Both these cases only confirm the pattern whereby political leaders who are either critical or opposed to the current administration are being targeted and reveal the politicized nature of the justice system in the Maldives.

Separation of powers and independence of judiciary:  judicial independence continue in the Maldives, particularly to curtail powers of the independent Judicial Service Commission (JSC), a constitutional body.Apex court is using its control over lower courts not to ensure adherence to standards of fair trial and protection of constitutional rights, but to influence the administration of justice in the interest of the government.On 15 February 2016, the chief judge of the Criminal Court, Judge Abdullah, was transferred to the Family Court following his refusal to order former Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin’s detention.

He was replaced instead by Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf, a highly controversial judge now under fire for his conduct in the trials and sentencing of leading opposition leaders.

Freedom and space for civil society: The Maldives continues to curtail fundamental freedoms through regressive legislative measures and numerous incidents of harassment and violence against journalists.Maldives passed the Protection of Reputation and Good Name and Freedom of Expression Act, popularly known as the Defamation Act, on 10 August 2016.