Since 2005, I have thought that the major hurdle for the
establishment of a democratic system of government in the Maldives was the
Judiciary. Three main characteristics of the Maldivian Judiciary inhibited the
promotion of democratic ideals: The utter incompetence and ignorance of judges,
particularly as relates to the basic principles and norms of a democratic
society; the ubiquitous corruption among judges and the rampant desire of
judges to please a ruthless tyrant in return for their positions so that they
could continue their corrupt practices.
The rewriting of the Constitution was an opportunity for the
country to change this around. It was generally felt that if judges were given
full independence, they would maintain justice in the country. I never
subscribed to this notion, as I could see that most of the judges in the system
would not survive in a meritocratic system based on integrity and competence.
Nevertheless, in any democratic forum, majority prevails.
It must be noted that the chapter on the Judiciary was
drafted and redrafted 7 times, and every time it was DRP who objected to the
draft. Eventually it was passed with compromise. You may ask why. The simple
answer is DRP (essentially Qayyoom) controlled all but 27 of the 113 seats in
the Special Majlis, and had those compromises not been made, the Constitution
would never have seen the light of day.
The JSC was put in as the oversight body of the Judiciary
and the composition was made up so that all three branches of the state were
equally represented in it, making it the pivotal point of the Constitution.
The composition of the JSC has since become the centre of
much debate. Many do a very shallow analysis of events and come to the
conclusion that the whole problem within the Judiciary lies in two MPs sitting
in the JSC. But that is only 2 out of 10! In fact, nothing could be further
from the truth.
Three major factors contribute to the problem.
Firstly, the Judicature Act and the Judges Act, which were
passed by the Majlis in 2010, violates the Constitution and democratic norms by
a large margin. The Supreme Court has taken maximum advantage of this and
abused the system to undermine the Constitution.
Secondly, the Majlis, which is the oversight body of the JSC
and the ultimate oversight body for the entire Judiciary is full of compromised
MPs. So many MPs have cases before the courts, and their personal stakes in the
courts are so high that MPs in general simply turn a blind eye to the misdeeds
within the Judiciary. The Supreme Court was constituted to ensure that these
corrupt politicians and those MPs who had committed serious crimes or had
colluded in criminal activity would be protected through cronies on the Bench.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the battle for the
political survival of Qayyoom and his loyalists started in the Majlis and
spilled into the Judiciary and the JSC. The final battleground will be the
Supreme Court, and controlling the JSC to protect the Supreme Court and the
Qayyoom brothers is essential.
Thus, the real problem is not the composition of the JSC.
The real problem is the battle between Good and Evil. Justice and Injustice.
You can change the JSC. You can change all the Independent Institutions. But as
long as the Qayyoom brothers remain in a position to call shots in the
political arena, you will not see justice prevail in this country.
The reader is referred to my previous writings on the
Judiciary in this blog for some details of events as they happened.
The status quo today is that with yesterday’s two rulings by
the Supreme Court against the Majlis, the Supreme Court has effectively
declared Supremacy over the people, nullifying article 4 of the Constitution.
There is no Constitution in the country any more.
Question is, what will the Majlis do? Will they understand
their folly and act? I call on Speaker Shahid to uphold the Power of the People
by defying the Supreme Court rulings on both accounts. He should call the
secret ballot for the impeachment motions, and he should call for nominations
to fill the vacancy in the Civil Service Commission.
If any state official or body challenges the Speaker’s
decision and action on these two issues, the Majlis must move a motion to freeze
the remuneration/budget of such official or body.
