Nov 11, 2015 | News
While welcoming the Maldives government’s revocation of the emergency yesterday, the arbitrary manner in which the emergency was first imposed and then suddenly revoked within the span of a week reflects a deeper erosion of the rule of law in the country, the ICJ said today.
On 10 November, a week after declaring a 30-day state of emergency, the Maldives lifted the emergency reportedly because authorities had arrested several people in connection with an alleged plot to “use dangerous weapons and explosives”, thereby neutralizing the purported national security threat cited as the grounds for the emergency.
Maldivian authorities have not provided any information as to who or how many individuals were arrested or the nature of the charges.
“The imposition of a state of emergency is not a political tool to be used willy-nilly as a matter of convenience to suspend human rights protections and suppress political opposition,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s South Asia Senior Legal Adviser.
“A state of emergency that suspends constitutional rights is not to be declared lightly,” he added. “It has serious implications for human rights and the rule of law in the country, and must only be invoked in the most extreme situations and in accordance with international law.”
International law expressly permits derogations of certain human rights only in times of public emergency which threatens ‘the life of the nation’.
“Declaring a 30-day emergency and then suddenly lifting it a week later only reinforces the serious concerns previously raised as to the legitimacy of the emergency in the first place, and speaks to the larger rule of law crisis in the country,” Narayan said.
The emergency decree issued by the Maldives government last week suspended several constitutional rights, including the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, and reduced the constitutionally mandated period for the vice president to respond to impeachment charges from 14 to 7 days.
The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had planned a public anti-government demonstration for 6 November, two days prior to which the emergency was declared.
Meanwhile, the vice president was removed from his post the day after the emergency decree, 5 November, in a swift and seemingly arbitrary impeachment hearing.
“The circumstances surrounding events in the Maldives this past week clearly suggest that the government was using the emergency as a ploy to prevent the planned opposition rally and to eliminate the vice president as a political threat,” said Narayan.
The emergency also granted sweeping powers of search, arrest and detention without warrant to the police, who reportedly raided several buildings and arrested an unknown number of individuals under its emergency powers over the past week.
“The Maldives government cannot flout international law by invoking emergency powers as a means to deny the due process rights of the vice president and others arrested or detained for alleged crimes,” added Narayan. “The government must ensure that the individuals arrested during the emergency are afforded their full fair trial and due process rights in accordance with international law.”
Additional Information:
The ICJ previously raised concerns that the alleged grounds for the emergency did not appear to establish a threat to the life of the as required by the high threshold set by international law, and could not in any event justify the complete suspension of constitutional rights.
In August 2015, following a joint fact-finding mission to the Maldives, the ICJ and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) documented the breakdown of the rule of law and human rights in the Maldives in a 35-page report, Justice Adrift: Rule of Law and the Political Crisis in the Maldives.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia, t: +977 9813187821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Nov 4, 2015 | News
The government of Maldives must immediately revoke its suspension of human rights protections under the state of emergency declared today and restore the rule of law to the country, said the ICJ.
The Maldivian government suspended a range of constitutional protections under a 30-day state of emergency declared on 4 November, citing a threat to national security based on the allegation that “some groups are planning to use … dangerous weapons and explosives,” according to a translated version of the emergency decree obtained by the ICJ.
“The complete suspension of constitutional protections for human rights such as the right to liberty and right to free assembly goes far beyond anything that could be justified by the alleged grounds cited by the government,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s South Asia Senior Legal Adviser.
“International law strictly regulates attempts by governments to suspend or otherwise derogate from human rights on the grounds of emergency,” he added.
Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Maldives is a State Party, expressly permits derogations only for certain human rights, and then only ‘in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation’.
“Maldivian authorities have not come close to explaining how the current situation constitutes a threat to the ‘life of the nation’, the high threshold set by international law for the derogation of rights in times of emergency,” Narayan said.
According to the emergency decree, the constitutionally protected rights that have been suspended during the state of emergency are, among others:
- Article 19: “A citizen is free to engage in any conduct or activity that is not expressly prohibited by Islamic Shari’ah or by law. No control or restraint may be exercised against any person unless it is expressly authorised by law.”
- Article 24: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his private communications. Every person must respect these rights with respect to others.”
- Article 31: “Every person employed in the Maldives and all other workers have the freedom to stop work and to strike in order to protest.”
- Article 32: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly without prior permission of the state.”
- Article 41(a): “Every citizen has the freedom to enter, remain in and leave the Maldives, and to travel within the Maldives.”
- Article 45: “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained, arrested or imprisoned except as provided by law enacted by the People’s Majlis in accordance with Article 16 of this Constitution.”
- Article 47(a) and (b): “(a) No person shall be subject to search or seizure unless there is reasonable cause. (b) Residential property shall be inviolable and shall not be entered without the consent of the resident, except to prevent immediate and serious harm to life or property, or under the express authorisation of an order of the Court.”
“The basic prohibition against arbitrary detention and imprisonment can never be derogated from,” Narayan said.
The declaration of the state of emergency also seems to target the country’s vice president, whom the president appears to regard as a political threat. The vice president is facing impeachment proceedings for his alleged role in the boat explosion which the government claims was caused by a bomb as part of a deliberate assassination attempt.
The emergency decree reduces the period provided under Article 100 of the Maldives Constitution for the vice president to respond to the impeachment charges from 14 days to 7 days.
“There seems to be a clear political motive in arbitrarily reducing the vice president’s procedural rights in the impeachment process,” added Narayan.
Additional information
The alleged threat cited by the Maldivian government refers to the announcement that Maldivian security forces had discovered weapons and explosives in two areas, and that some additional weapons were missing.
These allegations followed the purported discovery of an explosive device near the president’s palace on Monday that, following closely on last month’s explosion on a boat carrying the president and his wife, the government claims is part of an alleged assassination attempt on the president.
The government rejected the findings of an FBI investigation into the earlier boat explosion which ruled out the possibility that it was caused by a bomb.
In August 2015, following a joint fact-finding mission to the Maldives, the ICJ and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) documented the breakdown of the rule of law and human rights in the Maldives in a 35-page report, Justice Adrift: Rule of Law and the Political Crisis in the Maldives.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia, t: +977 9813187821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Sep 24, 2015 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ made an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva today, calling on the Maldives to accept and implement recommendations on human rights and the rule of law, including the independence of the judiciary, received as part of the UN Universal Periodic Review process.
The statement, which was also supported by the NGO South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR), may be downloaded in PDF format here: Maldives-UN-HRC30OralStatement-Advocacy-non legal statement-2015-ENG
The report of a joint ICJ-SAHR fact-finding mission to the Maldives, conducted earlier this year, is available here.
Sep 14, 2015 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
In advance of the UN Human Rights Council’s adoption of the outcome of its review of the Maldives’ human rights record as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, the ICJ has submitted a written statement.
It highlights the Maldives’ failure to accept and implement a number of member states’ UPR recommendations.
In particular, the ICJ pointed out the urgent need for Maldives to accept and implement recommendations regarding the following issues, among others:
- Strengthening the independence and impartiality of the judiciary;
- Strengthening the independence and impartiality of the Judicial Service Commission;
- Strengthening the National Human Rights Commission, in accordance with the Paris Principles;
- Strengthening women’s representation in the judicial profession;
- Immediately releasing former president Mohamed Nasheed and other political prisoners, and ensuring the fairness of any further legal proceedings in such cases; and
- Safeguarding freedom of expression and media, association and peaceful assembly by investigating cases of human rights abuse and violations against journalists, civil society and human rights defenders, and taking effective measures to prevent further abuses
The Council will consider member states’ UPR recommendations for the Maldives during its 30th session on 24 September 2015, ahead of which the Maldives government will be expected to formally respond and indicate which of the recommendations it will commit to implement.
Mar 26, 2015 | News
The conviction of the Maldives’ former president, Mohamed Nasheed, on terrorism charges after a grossly unfair trial marks a significant deterioration of the independence and impartiality of the country’s judiciary, said the ICJ.
On 13 March, Mr. Nasheed (photo) was sentenced to 13 years in prison for the dismissal and alleged unlawful detention of the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Mr. Abdullah Mohamed, in 2012, when Mr. Nasheed was president.
He was convicted of an “act…of kidnapping or abduction of person(s) or of taking hostage(s)” under Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1990.
“The Maldivian judiciary’s independence has been compromised for years by serious pressure from the government, and this grossly unfair conviction highlights the numerous problems with the politicization of the judiciary in the country,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “It is crucial for Maldivian authorities to allow Mr. Nasheed to appeal his case effectively, with transparency and monitoring by Maldivian and international observers.”
The case’s pre-trial phase and trial were marked by gross violations of international standards of fair trial, including Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Maldives acceded in 2006.
Two of the judges on the three-judge bench testified as witnesses against Mr. Nasheed in the 2012 investigation; these statements were submitted as evidence in the present trial.
Mr. Nasheed’s defense team was not allowed to be present on his behalf during the first proceeding, nor was he given the opportunity to seek bail.
The defense team was repeatedly denied full access to prosecution evidence and witnesses or to regularly consult with Mr. Nasheed during the course of the trial.
When Mr. Nasheed’s defense team recused itself in protest of the lack of fairness, the court proceeded with the trial without legal representation present for Mr. Nasheed rather than granting him the opportunity to obtain new counsel. The defense was also denied the opportunity to call its own witnesses.
Mr. Nasheed now has the right to appeal the conviction, but his right to appeal has been infringed by the unprecedented amendment of the statutory period for appeal from 90 days to 10 days, via Supreme Court circular six weeks prior to the trial.
In addition, the court has still not released to Mr. Nasheed’s defense team the full court record required to prepare and present an effective appeal within this accelerated timeframe.
The ICJ has previously documented the politicization of the judiciary and the polarized political climate in the Maldives, calling attention to a justice system characterized by vested interests and political allegiances rooted in the country’s authoritarian past (See Maldives: Securing an Independent Judiciary in a Time of Transition (February 2011)).
“Recent events reflect a justice system that still remains deeply politicized along the same lines of entrenched political loyalties that pre-date the transition period,” Zarifi said. “The Maldivian judiciary must allow a proper appeal in this case if it is to establish itself as a separate and equal branch of the government dedicated to supporting the rule of law.”
The ICJ urged Maldivian authorities to ensure Mr. Nasheed’s defense team full access and adequate opportunity to prepare an effective appeal, and to ensure that the appeal proceeding is conducted fairly and transparently, with full access to media and domestic and international observers, in compliance with fair trial and due process standards under both Maldivian and international law.
The Maldives must also take effective measures to ensure that such violations do not reoccur in this or future cases.
Background information can be downloaded here:
Maldives-Background Brief Nasheed Trial-Advocacy-Anylysis brief-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
