White sand, crystal water, surreal sea life: that’s why people from all over the world visit Maldives. How about repression, corruption and Islamization? Tourists may not know about autocratic and dissent-stifling rule by Mamoon Gayoom, president for decades until recently. Gayoom’s despotism was temporarily reversed in 2008 through election of Mohamed Nasheed, leader of the reform-minded Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), as president. Nasheed had spent many stays in prison, where he suffered repeated torture at the hands of Gayoom’s goons for daring to speak out against both the despotic political order and its creepingly Islamist social agenda.
Gayoom’s cronies resented Nasheed’s efforts to investigate and prosecute corruption and human rights abuses. Meanwhile, religiously fervent citizens judged Nasheed weak on protecting Islamic values and culture. Things boiled over in early 2012 after Nasheed’s government arrested the chief criminal court judge for obstructing prosecution of corruption and human rights cases. Calling the arrest unconstitutional, Nasheed’s opponents took to the streets in protest. Nasheed resigned the presidency but subsequently claimed he was forced to do so in a military coup led by his vice president, Mohammed Waheed, who immediately assumed the presidency. Amnesty International observes that police carried out “beatings, arbitrary detentions, attacks on the injured in hospitals and torture,” in connection with this change in government. A newly-uncovered possible explanation for the timing of Nasheed’s overthrow will be mentioned below.
Later that year, Waheed arrested Nasheed and charged him with ‘terrorism’, characterising the arrest of the judge as an act of ‘kidnapping.’ A court subsequently sentenced Nasheed to 13 years in prison. Another presidential election later that year yielded more first-round votes for Nasheed than for any other candidate. International election observers pronounced that round free and fair, but the Maldivian Supreme Court annulled it, alleging irregularities. Two of the MDP’s rival parties then formed a coalition to elect Abdullah Yameen, Gayoom’s half-brother, as the new president. Since then, Gayoom and Yameen factions have fallen into bickering between themselves, but Yameen’s regime meanwhile represents an intensification of Gayoom’s: dissident politicians and journalists in jail, whiffs of corruption everywhere, accelerated Islamism as the social agenda.
Yameen’s tactics have drawn unusual international attention to Maldives. In a detailed study last fall, the United Nations Working Group for Arbitrary Detention pronounced Nasheed’s ‘terrorism’ conviction lawless and politically motivated. Last autumn, the European Parliament called for targeted asset freezes and travel bans on Maldivian officials and leading regime supporters unless Nasheed and other political prisoners gain prompt release. In January, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron announced likewise that his government might impose targeted sanctions. In February, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group called for release of political prisoners and reforms to secure an independent judiciary. In April, the United States Senate unanimously denounced due process failures in Nasheed’s conviction while urging Nasheed’s release along with other political prisoners.
[pullquote]In August, Yameen’s parliament rubber-stamped legislation that escalates the danger of criticizing the government. The ‘Law on Defamation’ makes virtually any strong criticism of officials a criminal act[/pullquote]
International support has encouraged Maldivian resistance to Yameen. June saw the launch of a ‘Maldives United Opposition’ (MUO). Meetings of the MUO’s ‘shadow cabinet’ for an alternative government have focused on restoring and advancing political freedom and the rule of law. In late August, Nasheed visited Sri Lanka for meetings possibly aimed at Yameen’s prompt removal. Nasheed revived charges that the coup against his own presidency came in direct response to discovery of a black market deal handled by Yameen during Gayoom’s rule. According to Nasheed, price-subsidised OPEC oil shipped to Maldives out of Islamic solidarity was diverted into highly-profitable sales to Myanmar’s military junta, which lay at the time under international boycott for human rights violations. Upwards of a hundred million dollars may have been siphoned into private bank accounts as part of these transactions.
By a two-thirds majority, the Maldivian parliament may remove a president for ‘serious misconduct’ or for violating a tenet of ‘Islam, the Constitution or law.’ Nasheed may now be seeking legal grounds for removing Yameen via parliament, even though the alleged oil diversion happened before Yameen’s presidency. Parliamentary removal of Yameen seems plausible if Gayoom loyalists in Yameen’s coalition cross over to assist the MUO. Gayoom reportedly frowns on Yameen’s brand of repression as damaging to the country’s international reputation. Awkwardly though, Gayoom himself may have been in on the alleged oil diversion, which happened during his presidency.
Yameen’s tactics over the past year have been heavy handed indeed. Last November, Yameen declared a 30-day ‘emergency’ authorising extraordinary police powers, just on the eve of a planned anti-government rally. Critics contend that 1,800 political prisoners currently languish in Yameen’s jails. Yameen recently ordered closure of Maldives’ only opposition print newspaper. Some 84 percent of journalists report threats against their professional activities. The MUO complains of ongoing threats against civic groups. Late last year, the parliament passed an ‘anti-terrorism’ law even more draconian than the one used to convict Nasheed. Besides continuing to define ‘terrorism’ over-broadly, it allows the president to declare any organization a terrorist group and thereby threaten any member with up to 15 years in prison. Authorities can prosecute anyone giving a speech deemed supportive of ‘terrorism’ and anyone publishing reports on such a speech. Suspects can be held for prolonged periods without a court hearing and can meet lawyers only with police in the room.
The MDP claims that opposition rallies and meetings have elicited police pepper spray and arrests on multiple occasions over the past year while pro-government rallies have gone unmolested. Alleged police obstruction includes tactics like seizing sound trucks announcing MDP rallies. In early July, Yameen derailed a parade and rally in celebration of the MDP’s 11th anniversary. Just before the parade’s kick-off, police cordoned off the designated start point with shields and barricades. Police also took MDP Vice President Mohamed Shifaz into custody, holding him for ‘questioning’ until demoralized MDP crowds dispersed later in the evening.
In August, Yameen’s parliament rubber-stamped legislation which escalates the danger of criticizing the government. This ‘Law on Defamation’ makes virtually any strong criticism of officials a criminal act. Nothing could be more perfectly calculated to suppress dissent and stifle discussion of issues. News editors warn that the law “will prevent journalists and citizens from speaking out over serious accusations of corruption and integrity of state officials.” Especially troubling aspects of the law include: 1) the context of its enactment; 2) procedural irregularities in its enactment; and 3) its detailed provisions.
The MUO contends that the new law’s immediate purpose is to stifle allegations that president Yameen stole US$80 million from a state-owned corporation. The new law will clearly obstruct journalistic efforts to uncover the truth. Both reporters and media outlets are subject to sanction.
Worrisome also is the extraordinary procedure used in enacting the law. Committee deliberation, normally a forum for criticism and amendment, was cut abruptly short so as to ensure prompt passage with draconian provisions left untouched. The committee disallowed the standard practice of entertaining comments from non-governmental parties. In cutting short committee discussion, the Chair announced that the Fiqh Academy– the state’s religious council, recently formed and modeled on Iran’s Supreme Council–had declared the Bill to be “Islamic, and in keeping with Islamic values.” There was therefore no need for detailed scrutiny, according to the Chair. The Fiqh Academy cites Saudi and Sudanese law to justify making defamation a criminal offense and imposing stiff sanctions. Members of Parliament received the committee report only two hours before the debate, which was itself limited to two hours.
The law’s most obvious flaw is of course that it criminalizes dissent. Fines ranging from $3,000 to $300,000 may be imposed and offenders who fail to pay the fines face up to six months in jail. Offending media outlets may be shut down. Appeals from convictions are banned. Criminalization of defamation reverses Nasheed’s 2009 reform, which removed defamation from the Maldives’ criminal books, relegating it to a civil offense for which private parties could sue. While many countries list defamation as a crime, an emerging world consensus holds that enforcement of such laws inherently chills criticism of government. Sri Lanka has removed defamation from its criminal statutes. In the U.S. criminal defamation prosecutions are rare and may violate constitutional law. Even in treating defamation as a civil offense, the United States lets public officials sue only where a media outlet recklessly or intentionally ignores whether allegations published are true or not.
[pullquote]The new law will clearly obstruct journalistic efforts to uncover the truth. Both reporters and media outlets are subject to sanction[/pullquote]
In a more subtle legal flaw, the new law places a crucial proof burden on the defendant, not the prosecution. To establish the crime, prosecutors need not prove that assertions damaging to officials are false. Instead, damaging assertions will be presumed false. Defendants can escape sanction only by proving their allegations to be true. In practice, this means that media outlets must refrain from publishing any damaging information that they cannot prove to be true. Reporting possible but unprovable misfeasance could land you in jail. Such a proof burden flaw, while also common around the world, again flies against an emerging consensus on protecting the right to criticize.
Finally and equally disturbing, the new law criminalises not only criticism of government officials, but also advocacy contrary to “any tenet of Islam,” to “national security” or to “general social norms.” Properly labeled, this law on ‘defamation’ is also a law on blasphemy, Sharia, state secrecy and saying anything critical about anything.