Dhivehi Observer :: The People's Press ::

A Legacy Lost in Excellence

Member of Parliament, Maldives 15th June 2004

The flood gates of political thought and opinion inundated the Maldives as it was sparked off by an unofficial conference held at the Islamic Centre on the 10^th of June 2004. In this meeting the (power-despot) President of the Maldives, Mr. Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom made unprecedented propositions towards democratic reform and liberalisation. The hushed gasps of the audience that came moments before the applauses can be explained by the shock and utter disbelief of most Maldivians who were witnessing Mr. Gayyoom’s tacit submission to the pressure generated by Political dissidents and the International Community. The President’s Office was quick to describe the audience being “rapturous” in its applause; however, the support was not attributed to Mr. Gayyoom on any level. In view of Mr. Gayyoom’s concentration of State-administrative and Judiciary power in the office of the Chief Executive and the complete disregard of the Constituents of the Law, it is not conceivable that earnest intentions and actions of this man can co-exist in the same dimension without hypocrisy. Instead, the hearts of Maldivians went out to Political activists and critics of the Government working at home and abroad, whose hard work was brought about at the expense of their livelihood and persevering a lot of hardship. History was made notwithstanding, when the perpetrator of 26 years of autocratic rule was forced to yield to the gathering frustration of the people who had finally become aware of his tyranny.

Speaking further with the assistance of a stop-watch (which if readers may recall[1], has become habitual for Mr. Gayyoom, who employs it whenever he wants to give some credibility to his utterances), Mr. Gayyoom strongly vindicated his rejection to allow the registration of a political party (in February 2001) on the grounds that the “law/legislative structure” does not provide for the operation of a multi-party system. To dodge away from the responsibility as much as to disguise the authoritarian discipline of his Government, Mr. Gayyoom lowered the buck a few notches down and squarely pointed out to the “advice” of the legal counsel he received from the Attorney General’s Office[2], which he claims now had prompted his decision. In retrospect, back in 2001, there was little, if not, no mentioning about the legal intricacies involved in introducing a multi-party system in the

Although the audience was described as "rapturous" in its applause, the support was not attributed to Mr. Gayoom on any level

Maldives. Sitting across the first few rows in the Republic Day Conference held at Dharubaaruge in 2001, I remember all too well (as on record and so would many others) when the President stated that multi-party system politics does not conform to the norms of a “homogenous” society like Maldives. Furthermore, a skilful propagation delivered by Mr. Gayyoom also led people into thinking that such political associations would incite disunion in religious and Islamic Affairs. At this point, it is worthwhile to emphasise that Mr. Gayyoom had exploited the people’s solidarity and their wish for sovereignty by misleading them under a false parody of division; knowing very well that his authority in Islamic Studies and understanding can be used as a tool for his political manoeuvring. The conclusion is; there was no reference to any advice or counsel from the Attorney General’s Office in justifying his decision to overrule Peoples’ Rights of Association when he presented his case to the Majlis and the Public back in 2001.

To acquaint readers with the Law, a few extracts from the Constitution of the Maldives relating to the Freedom of Association shall now be stated below (Chapter II: The Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens):

          Article 27

Persons shall be free to form societies and associations, unless prohibited by law in the interest of the protection of sovereignty of the Maldives and the maintenance of public order.

Article 31

(1) Where any law, regulation or any principle having the force of law is inconsistent with the fundamental rights stipulated in this Chapter, such law, regulation or principle shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.

(2) The fundamental rights stipulated in this Chapter shall not, temporarily or otherwise, be denied save in accordance with this Constitution.

          In the presence of these extracts I shall now quote from Mr. Gayyoom’s interview[3] aired on BBC’s World Service on the 12^th of June 2004:

Quote one:

“Our constitution does not specifically say that political parties can operate in the country”

          Quote two:

“I sought legal opinion on that from our legal experts, and they said that, because of certain other provisions in the constitution, a party system is not viable or cannot be operated in the country as the Constitution stands.”

The Fundamental Rights does not leave any room for it to be misconstructed

Mr. Gayyoom, Maldivians of this day are not credulous as they were back in 1979. The Fundamental Rights of the people stated herein does not leave any room for it to be misconstrued. Recalling your statements from when the Constitution was implemented seven years ago, you repeatedly emphasised how this Constitution guarantees Maldivians their Human Rights in accordance with International Standards and Practice without contradicting Islamic Sharia’. Generally speaking, the Fundamental Rights of a Constitution need not explicitly state which type of “associations” or “societies” that the law can give enforcement to. It is a very general set of rules under which legislation maybe passed by the Parliament and as stated by law would be void should it contravene the Statues stipulated in Chapter II. Apart from this, not every clause or article in the Constitution specifies in verbatim the conditions and states under which it can be executed. General cases are broadly classified and treated according to the norms of International Legislative and Law Practices. It is the duty of the Members of Parliament to pass legislation in compliance with the fundamental statutes and thereby specify the narrower guidelines, requirements and regulations, if any, that maybe required in practicing the articles. We, the people, do not believe that the non-existence of explicit guidelines regarding the formation of Political Parties is good enough a reason for you to authorise the infraction of the Law, Constitution and bereave us of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

All in all, it is clear that Mr. Gayyoom’s decision had different explanations and characteristics in the past and the new yarn being spun now, ascribes the legitimacy of his decision to the “legal advice” he sought from experts. Sadly, the fact of the matter is “legal advice” and expertise does not nullify Article 31. The proposal put forward by Mr. Gayyoom to disallow the formation of a political party stands clearly in violation of Article 31; the People’s Majlis, neither the Chief Executive nor the President’s “legal experts” have the authority to pass any law, principle or proposal that is inconsistent with the Constituents of Chapter II. The Constitution further prescribes the jurisdiction to make any changes to it only to the Special Majlis (Upper Parliament) in article 92. Its insipient that Mr. Gayyoom has acted unconstitutionally in his capacity as the President and is guilty of high treason (in reference to Article 12 [Clause. 1], Chapter I)

Article 12

(1) Any person who, by the threat or use of force or in violation of the Constitution, abrogates or attempts to abrogate the Constitution or attempts to undermine the Constitution or conspires to commit any of the said acts shall be guilty of high treason.

The Proposals made by the President on the 10th of June 2004 were plagiaristic at best

In the proximity of such arrant infractions of the law (of which only one case is being presented in this article), it is implausible to entrust Mr. Gayyoom (acting in the capacity of President) with the task of reformation. Another crucial factor which is missing from it all is that there have been many instances in the past in which Maldivians have tried to cite these reformative issues and proposed very good solutions. But in almost all cases, the political dissidents and reformists who dare advocate these views and communicate them in line with the law are charged with “incitement” of violence and provocation of Public disorder. The only exemption from this sort of treatment in the last twenty six years seems to have been granted to the perpetrator himself; Mr. Gayyoom. Ironically, the proposals made by the President on the 10^th of June 2004 were plagiaristic at best. Their origins can be traced back to the ones made by Mr. Saadiq (of the MLD) among many others[4].

Adding to the perplexity is also the fact that Mr. Gayyoom’s strong belief that the Constitution was very “complete”. He has been addressing this issue in Public as late as the year 2002. Quoting once again from his Speech to mark the occasion of the Republic day (2002) he was quoted saying[5] (native script):

- cSwncnemuDnwguLwa cnutog egcaeaWjItwnegEaidwa ,iawvcaedcaok ctwkcawswmea cnedcnwv caekwtcnWmwzwnig cSwrwv "

" Wfibil InwvimurWhim caeaIsWswaunUnWq wmwhiruf cSwrwv

Less than two years after this vociferous claim, we find the same President telling us that the socio-political sphere and its state has changed so drastically that the Constitution his Government had worked on for the better part of 17 years does not render suitability for the purposes of Maldivians any longer! Mr. President, no one with their sanity intact would agree to that. Amassing further disgrace for himself, Mr. Gayyoom also stated that the Citizens of Maldives could submit their views and opinions on reformation to him. What happens from thenceforth need not be left to the imagination; history will recur once again. There is no doubt that Mr. Gayyoom would strain out any solid reformative measures by “preferential selection” and “elimination”. Even without Mr. Gayyoom’s customary shenanigans, he is able to have full control over the final decision of the Special Majlis as accorded to the Office of the Chief Executive in article 101:

Article 101

Any article or provision of this Constitution may be amended only by a law passed by a majority of votes in the People’s Special Majlis AND assented to by the President.

The title "His Excellency" you have been attached to for the duration of your term in office is a grave affront to your characteristics

The Reformist Movement has only gained partial momentum with the events of these past few days. Mr. Gayyoom’s presidency over these reforms will definitely overshadow the whole process of reformation. Retrospectively, this President’s past conduct and acute violation of the Law and Constitution do not leave much room for any confidence; we have lost our generation to this man, please let us not leave the next to a similar fate. Mr. President, we, the People call upon you to kindly step aside and let the reformation process go forward without being hindered, influenced or infringed upon using the extensive powers instated in the Office of the Chief Executive. In time, with the assent of the people, we will deliver you to Justice and prosecute your crimes (including Human Rights Abuses, infringement of the Law and Constitution and abuse of power) to the full extent of the New Laws and Constitution that we (the People) intend to bring about.

Mr. Gayyoom, I thank you personally for taking the first step towards the long-awaited goals of Democratisation and Justice by publicly declaring the reformist movement (albeit the authenticity of it lies with someone else). We assure you that the next step that we require you to take towards that goal would not be any difficult than the first. Please, Mr. Gayyoom, we have given you 26 years to prove your worth. One thing we would not forget to tell our grandchildren about you from our common History is that the Title “His Excellency” you have been attached to for the duration of your term in office is a grave affront to your characteristics. This would be the most opportune time to end the false salutation.

[1] In an address to the General Assembly of the United Nations, Mr. Gayyoom made a similar attempt to add drama to his speech by counting down the time he was allowed at the podium. He did this by reading off his wrist watch. At the end, the Speaker of the General Council whose nerves were grated understandably by Mr. Gayyoom’s theatrics was heard saying “Thank you Mr. President, for your….strict time-keeping”!!!

[2] Ref: Haveeru news Service, 10 June 2004 (Haveeru Ref. A)

[3] Ref: The Presidential Office Website

[4] The reader may suspect a bias in identifying Mr. Saadiq’s name explicitly as one of the reformists. It is not. The author decided to mention him particularly, because he was one of the earliest-known reformists with a solid knowledge-based programme for Reformation.

[5] Dharubaaruge, 12^th November 2002