“Mi hafthaaga veythoa balaanan…”
[Will see if it can be done this week...]
- This was the response of President of the Judicial Services Commission and Supreme Court justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy on Sunday when an asked to clarify when he would include on Agenda the matter of re-thinking criteria for re-appointment of judges under Article 285 as requested by President Mohamed Nasheed in a letter to the JSC dated 27 May 2010 delivered to the Commission on the same date.
- All nine members of the Commission present at Sunday’s meeting took this in silence…
To agenda it was.
And on it, Committee decisions from March, April and May from ‘Employment Committee’ and ‘Complaints Committee’ waiting in queue for Commission approval…
***** * * * * * *****
Why worry?
- There remains only 62 days left of the two-year Constitutional period given to the Judicial Services Commission (Article 285 of the Constitution) to assess all sitting judges appointed prior to coming into force of the Constitution on 7 August 2008, to ascertain whether they meet or do not meet the qualifications for judges as stipulated in Article 149 of the Constitution.
- Nearly 200 of the 207 judges currently on the bench were appointed prior to the adoption of the current Constitution and need to be assessed under Article 285.
If JSC is not held accountable, and the JSC’s act of impunity that shows absolute disregard for the Constitution, Rule of Law or democratic practices is allowed to hold, and all judges are re-affirmed as judges qualified under Article 149 of the Constitution, it would mean that the The Judiciary the JSC vetted as worthy of public trust and respect would include, amongst the many worthy judges, a few that would continue to compromise the integrity of the judiciary and threaten justice and democracy consolidation in the Maldives.
If records at JSC are to be believed:
# A few, i.e. about 20 (+/-) sitting judges, have been found guilty of criminal offences such as fraud, gross misconduct etc. under administrative inquiries of the Ministry of Justice and the Anti Corruption Board following the then law and practice. The ‘criteria’ JSC has announced would pass them all as having the Good Character expected of a judge despite criminal records of fraud, sexual offences, etc…
# There remains about a 100 unchecked complaints (possibly not all relevant) that must still be looked into and checked by JSC before any judge alleged in those complaints can be vetted as fulfilling the requirements of a judge including Good Character befitting a judge.
***** * * * * * *****
And then there’s Educational Qualifications, Experience, Abilities/Capabilities etc. that members never got a chance to discuss as the Chair, refusing to acknowledge all proposals and recommendations, and without discussion or vote, went ahead to declare that it was “unanimously agreed”.
And most of the members of the Commission present at the meeting took this in silence…
The only raise of hands was to decide whether those that Article 149 (b)3 disqualify would disqualify!
And the count: Four hands raised, four hands down, and eight members in attendance!
After the count, the Lawyer declared that he did not raise his hand not because he was against it but…
An abstention?
It was! Never mind it was after the count…
And with that one vote, JSC decided.
Just.
***** * * * * * *****
When no assumptions upon which a democratic system is built holds, when Independent Institutions ‘practice the Right to Remain Silent’ in order to defy accountability, where goes the Constitution?
in to the dustbin vel! this is how democratic our judiciary has become. i feel like laughing. but then, sad that every single person over there is being so careless, so ignorant. i often wonder what their ultimate motive is. keep up the good work vel.