:: Dhivehi Observer :: Peoples Press ::

DO Blows the whistle on Gayyoom's referendum swindles

Dhivehi Observer - 1 June 2004

The spin doctors of the Presidential Administration of Mr. Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom have once again embraced its glaring defiance towards and abuse of Human Rights. This is evident from the Government’s rebuttal to the allegations and facts presented in the Annual Report 2004 published by Amnesty International. The Administration of Mr. Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom vehemently denied any wrong doing or abuse of Human Rights.

This cannot be further from the truth. Dhivehi Observer (DO) has initiated a campaign to address this matter in the International Community. Upon being informed by high-profile sources in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs[1], the Editor-in-Chief of DO, Mr. Shafeeq (Sappe') contacted a prominent political Observer in the South Asian region. The conversation between Mr. Shafeeq and the Former Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Niaz Naik took place on the 31^st of May 2003.

Mr. Naik was one of the partakers who were invited to observe the Presidential Referendum Process in Maldives. On behalf of Maldivians eager to see reformation, DO called upon Mr. Naik
to condemn the intricate propagation and culture of intimidation present in the electoral process, the power concentration in Democratic Institutions and most importantly, the Chief Executive’s constant man-handling and undermining of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives. Appalled, Mr. Naik
listened in silence as DO explicated the Prisoner-crisis of September 2003, arbitrary arrests of Prisoners of conscience, severe restrictions on Freedom of Speech and finally, the State-Sponsored equivocation on Human Rights abuses.

Mr. Naik asserted that the last Presidential Referendum was fair and free on the basis of what he was allowed and able to observe. However, DO called into question the legitimacy and integrity provided by a team of 6 International observers in monitoring an electoral process involving 200 islands scattered in sparse population. In this case, the International Electoral Observer group from SAARC failed to be credible or reliable in quality on account of the following factors:

§         Observation Period: The time-frame in which the International Observers are allowed to monitor the dynamic process of the election is most important. A proper observation would require the Observers to be present in the host country from the time leading up to the referendum and including the duration of the actual process of casting the ballot. However, the Electoral Authorities of the Maldives hosted the SAARC observers, if only, for a symbolic presence.

§         Provision of an Independent Resource base: A detailed verification of the domestic Electoral Observatory mechanism is subject to scrutiny from International Observers. There is no indication that the SAARC observers were provided with the means to facilitate the verification of the integrity of the Domestic Observers and monitors independently.

§         Scope and Coverage: For the equitable and fair representation of the Monitoring process, the Observers have to identify in their assertions, how much of the electoral process they had access to. It would be a tremendous task to oversee the electoral process in 200 islands in a short time-span. If this is the case, how many islands did these observers attend? Were the observers independent to choose where and when to attend or was it hand-picked and choreographed by Government Agencies?

          The discontent mounted as Mr. Naik was informed by DO, about the arbitrary arrests of prisoners of conscience, political dissidents and the government’s refusal to allow the formation of political parties. This is in clear violation of the fundamental rights of association and assembly enshrined and guaranteed to the people of the Maldives by the constitution. All in all, it was evident that Mr. Naik as well as the other officials involved in the monitoring process was exposed to scenarios, which were carefully orchestrated and administrated to conceal the deeply rooted culture of corruption and autocracy. To aggravate the falsities, the freedom of expression statute is most severely restricted (or rather in Dr. Saeed’s words[2], the restraints are being relieved in healthy doses!), to ensure there is no critique of the government’s policies, the electoral process and most importantly, the information about opposition candidates and there policy objectives. Furthermore, the work of the International Observers are rarely publicised and kept behind closed curtains. As a result, the public is constantly kept in the dark about the true level of political contention and representation choices available to them.

Such actions can only undermine foreign relations and international trust. Eminent diplomats such as Mr. Naik are victimised by this administration, whose only interest is to stay in power using whichever means possible. Apart from this, there is considerable reason to believe that the Gayyoom administration would not hesitate to temper with the evidence and conditions in which International Observers and NGOs perform their work. Under simulated set-ups, the Gayyoom administration persists in misleading the international community by issuing statements of artificial conviction with regard to the improvement of the democratic process.

The People of Maldives strongly believes that the preconditions for International Monitors to function in their capacity is severely restricted and discredited by the administration of this day. The citizens of the Maldives are united in their call for the International Institutions and Foreign Governments to sanction the immediate investigation of the grave abuses of Human Rights and corruption in the Gayyoom administration. Sadly, this administration adds to its’ gathering embarrassment and the battery of the rights of its’ citizens by resorting to a state of acute denial.

MR. NIAZ NAIK / PAKISTAN

Foreign Secretary (1982 - 1986)

Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the European Office of UNO; Geneva (1974 - 1978)

Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UNO; New York (1978 - 1982)

Ambassador to France and Ireland (1986 - 1988)

High Commissioner to India (1988 - 1990)

[1] The sources wish to remain anonymous on account of possible arbitrary arrest.

[2] Being implied from a quote in which Dr. Saeed was reported in Haveeru to have said “…it would not be appropriate to lift the restrictions on freedom of expression….”