Making a bad situation worse :: Maldives News :: Dhivehi Observer

Nashid Column

Making a bad situation worse

by Dr. Ibrahim Nashid - ibrahimnash@gmail.com, G. Keneree Ge, Male', 26 March 2006

Last week the parliament started debating the amendments to the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives Act of 2005. This farcical process clearly indicates how little importance Gayoom gives to improving the human rights situation of the Maldives. It also shows Gayoom's disregard of the parliament.

Towards the end of last year, due to the incompetence of the members of Gayoom's government, it failed to propose the names of candidates for the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives to the parliament with enough time for the parliamentarians to deliberate upon the list of names. Thus the act that was supposed to change the legal status of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives from one that was created by presidential decree to one that is ordained by an act of parliament, in effect sounded the death knell of the of the commission. Gayoom reacted to his government's incompetence in the manner of all dictators used to exclusive power: unable to abide by the laws that a parliament full of either his supporters or members appointed by him had made, he ordered them to change the law, thereby demonstrating that the parliament is nothing to him but a toy to be played with in a manner that he sees fit.

During last week's parliamentary debate many a government-supporting member tried to hide the inadequacies of the proposed bill by claiming, in the manner of playground rowdies, that the proposed amendment goes beyond what is suggested in the Paris Principles regarding national human rights commissions. By doing so they demonstrated their ignorance of those principles rather and that the protection of human rights is the least of their concerns.

Gayoom's timing in sending the bill to parliament demonstrates his real interest. The Maldives are a party to both the Convention Against Torture and its Optional Protocol. Since signing these two treaties his government has systematically failed to fulfill its obligations under these two agreements. Thus far he has pointed at the work of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives as a sign of progress. Now that the commission is dead he is attempting to resurrect it before the United Nation's Committee Against Torture meeting in early May. To hoodwink the international community this time around may not be as easy as he thinks.

In describing the membership criteria, Article 6 of the existing act discriminates against certain Maldivians. Point b (Shaviyani) and g (Kaafu) of article 6 together make sure that a Maldivian who is also a national of another country cannot become a member of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, although dual citizenship is allowed by Maldivian law. Instead of suggesting any improvements the new proposals have made the membership criteria worse. Article 6 h (Alifu) of the new proposals state that anybody who is a member or who is active in a political party cannot be elected to the commission. This in my view violates Article 20 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "every one has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association." Thus in order to become a member of the commission one has to give up one of the fundamental rights, the right to peaceful association.

This creates also the problem of the definition of a political party. The most renowned human rights organization in the world, Amnesty International, has been labeled a political organization by various authorities whose human rights violations it exposes. Thus being a member of Amnesty International would disqualify a person of being able to become elected as a member of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives.

Another contradiction in the amendment is between Articles 20 g (Kaafu) and Article 22 b. Article 20 g (Kaafu) obliges the commission to investigate violations of human rights that seem to have occurred in the eyes of the Attorney General, in a case that is proceeding in a court of law and report its findings to the Chief Justice. However, Article 22 b prohibits the commission of taking any action without the consent of the presiding judge in a case that is proceeding through a court of law. Thus the commission is damned if it does and damned if it does not.

Although the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives Act allowed 3 months for the government to act, they failed to act within this time. In the proposed amendments the time period has been reduced to 2 months. It is very likely that they will miss this period too as it is not in Gayoom's interest to protect the human rights of the Maldives.

Even if the government manages to get the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives functioning again, its fundamental drawback to be effective still remains. As long as the commission remains at the mercy of the Attorney General to take action against those who have been alleged to have violated the human rights of another person, it will never be in a position to take effective measures to stop the systematic torture that is carried out by Gayoom's security forces.

Please send feedback and comments to ibrahimnash@gmail.com And, click here to see previous articles by Nashid