:: Dhivehi Observer :: Peoples Press ::

Utter Rubbish and Hysterical reaction on the reaction to the report by Maldives Human Rights Commission

By Abdullah Ahmed, 26th September 2004

Since the publication of the report by Human Rights Commission of the Maldives on detainees held by the government in connection with the gathering held in Male on 13 August2004, the commission has received more criticism than perhaps the current government has ever received during its 25 year rule. The constant barrage of criticism the commission has witnessed since the publication of its report on detainees shows the danger and risk associates with the cause of democracy, rule of law in places and countries where it is rarely heard or is grossly misunderstood.

Those who have stepped in to defend the jailing and subsequent beating and torture of detainees aim to defame the Commission for reason that it has touched a sensitive nerve or perhaps a taboo within the ruling class of the Maldives. These circus group writing both in the ‘factmaldives’ or ‘themaldivian’ are under false pretext that their deceptive method would prevail in this era where enlightenment of knowledge has reached to the most remote corners of the Maldives.

The major clout of their argument revolves around the timing, the personals and their characters. Some says it would have been acceptable if there is an ‘iota’ of truth. The question is why only an iota? Within the criminal justice process the burden rests on the state to prove iota of truth. It is not incumbent upon the suspect or for anyone who advocates for their welfare to prove the case for the state. The power and the manner how a state execute its authority is always seen with suspicion by legal jurists. The state has unlimited power, force and resources. It is for these reasons that within the criminal justice process suspects, accused and defendants should be given any advantage wherever possible and their cause should receive sympathy.

Hence whenever and wherever, a state adopts certain measures which results in the loss of liberty, freedom and incarceration, the action of the state must be questioned and reviewed. This is a universal principle adopted by all legal jurists and international conventions. These are nothing new or are not an innovation by the human rights commission of the Maldives. The question whether there is an ‘iota of truth’, should be weighed in the scale of justice in the light of events proceeding to the incident on 13 of August 2004. The events prior to the fateful day and the excessive force used by the police and draconian measure adopted by the state to bring situation under control shows not only iota of truth but it reveals a sea of truth.

As regards to the members of the commission and their relevance to the report with some suggesting that some has their sons jailed and others themselves. The jailing of its members and relatives has angered the commission and prompted this report. That, if accepted would implicate even the highest executive member of the government. Even the top executive has his relatives convicted and are embattled in crimes such as drugs and corruption. Yet we tend not to blame him, for it is not his fault or he may not have condoned their action. Besides, when we think realistically of the size of the country and population, there is a possibility that many of the members from the executive branch be related in some manner with those taken in custody in relation with the gathering on 13^th August 2004.

Another attempt has been made to assassinate the characters of those involved in this incident particularly of those members of the commission. Though I do not fully agree with the composition of this commission and the conduct of some of its members particularly that of Husnu Suood, I fail to understand why to question the rationality of those decision now, when we did not see anything wrong at the launch of the commission. Again these members were not elected; rather they were selected, hence it is the fault of the judgement of the person who appointed them.

To say that they should be disqualified for the reason of their immoral conduct, especially of womanising and drinking makes mockery of the whole debate. Such argument smacks nothing but stupidity. On both side of spectrum whether government or the so called opposition or the MDP both counters each other with moral cards. It is because both know that the general public dislikes and abhors such behaviours. The sad fact is that both indulge in these activities. When we allege members of the Commission of indulging in drinking and other vice activities, are we sincere to ourselves when we knowingly ignore the fact that many of our top executives including members of current and past cabinet are habitual drinkers. The many Maldivian nights in the name of Maldives culture that are held in conjunction with many tourism fairs reveal the extent of our morality and the hypocrisy of our top officials. The nights thrive on with top officials raising their glasses to toast each other in a unique show of Maldives brotherhood. These are officially sanctioned functions. So whom are you all trying to mislead?

The issue of corruption will take us to another chapter, but we can be sure of the fact that even the noblest man including the top judicial officer of the nation and some of most powerful members of the current cabinet may find themselves in the dock, if we are honest about eradicating corruption. So what is the point of name and shame and character assassination? The fact of the matter is while Suood should be condemned for taking part in trials as a lawyer for whom he has set as a judge in the lower court, there are many other instances where conflict of interest has given rise or due process of law has been deliberately ignored.

Suood did wrong. What about the appointment of the Attorney General as a member of the committee which is overseen the current detainees. According to Article 60 (3) he will appear as a prosecutor on behalf of the state at all level of judiciary. Now does it suit him to sit in a committee where he will ultimately prosecute the detainees? Is it because the state wants to give him unfair advantage of knowledge and evidence while they curtail even the most basic rights to these detainees, including right to get professional legal assistance. Where is the conscience of the AG and where is the principle of conflict of interest in this instance? On another level, Maldives executives revel in the shoes of the judiciary. The constitution starting from Article 112 to 123 deals with the office of the judiciary. It prescribes Maldive judiciary into two tire system. According to the constitution, Maldives will have lower courts and a High Court, which constitutionally shall be the apex court of the Maldives. Yet, without any constitutional provision and without any legitimacy the Office of the President has been performing the function of an appeal court. It is the case of prosecuting and doing the judicial work simultaneously.

So why to bother conflict of interest? May be it is time we stop pretending and giving false hope. We should stop distorting facts specially under the banner ‘facts’ and even paparazzi work might be worth in a place where top law officials gloats about reforming the criminal justice system while they fail to accommodate basic human rights, and worse to show mercy on grounds of humanity. The case of Buruma Qasim is at point. Like the Maldives courts which do not need to refer the doctrine of stare decisis, it seems even the country’s top legal officer no longer requires them either. Nevertheless while restraining fundamental liberties; even in emergency, he should recourse to international laws. Finally, those who have got confused minds as regards to the function of the Human Rights Commission why not revisit the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Convention Against Torture and many other regional conventions on human rights to refresh the memory which will help understand the issue of human rights unless suffers from dyslexia.