(12 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
We now resume the sitting, and I call Karen Lumley to lead the next debate. [Interruption.] The Division bell is now going, so I shall suspend the sitting for a maximum of 15 minutes if there is one vote, and extend that to 20 minutes if there are two votes. However, if the Minister and Karen Lumley are here, we will continue as soon as possible.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Brooke. I had better start by declaring an interest; I have in a previous life worked in the Maldives. I am delighted to have secured this important debate to help ensure a fair trial in the Maldives for former President Mohamed Nasheed, and I thank the Minister for taking the time to answer some of our questions.
I first visited the Maldives in the summer of 2008 as part of my role with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, for which I am a political consultant. When the Maldives is mentioned, most people think of a fantastic holiday destination, which of course it is. I now see it as the other Maldives, where democracy broke through.
I arrived in Male, the capital, in August 2008 and went to meet my new colleagues, members of the Maldivian Democratic party, at their headquarters. The office was full of hopeful young people with pictures of their struggles so far. There were images of women being arrested, tear-gassing and police brutality—all in the name of democracy. Those were humbling sights for someone who takes democracy for granted. I then met Mohamed Nasheed, who was known to everyone as “Anni”. He is the same age as me, but it is almost unbelievable how much he has seen. He is a former Amnesty International prisoner of conscience, and has been jailed 13 times, beaten and tortured. He walks with a limp, yet he is full of hope and optimism for the future.
I travelled with Anni and showed the MDP how we ran our elections. I met so many people with stories to tell. At training sessions, I was often the only one who had not been beaten, tortured, jailed or forced into exile for my beliefs. We in our country take democracy for granted, and it was a brilliant experience helping others to learn about it, too. The MDP was keen to learn how to campaign, knock on doors, speak to residents and deliver leaflets, which we also take for granted.
On election night in October, I was in Redditch waiting to see how the MDP had done. By 11pm, it was obvious that Anni had defeated the dictator, and by a vote margin of 54% to 46%. Democracy had won the day. In a political fairy tale, Anni, the former political prisoner, had defeated the regime that had jailed and tortured him. I received a text message the next day from the editor of a local newspaper. She said:
“So many thoughts from the last five years and about the families who have suffered over the last 30 years. My eyes are swelling with tears every now and then. It is over Karen. It is really over. We can live in a country free from fear. People are crying. Thank you so much”.
It was moving to think that I had played a small part in helping to secure real democracy in their country. Anni promised to reform the country, and spent the next three years doing just that. He provided better health care, reformed transport, and provided a better pension system for the elderly—everything that he had promised in his manifesto.
Most importantly, however, Anni respected his people’s human rights and upheld democracy. Those two critical concepts, which are taken for granted by so many in the west, were finally beginning to bring greater prosperity to the people in the Maldives. Anni also worked tirelessly promoting the Maldives abroad. Indeed our Prime Minister referred to him as his new best friend.
Anni won awards for his climate change policies and travelled the world. He even held a Cabinet meeting underwater to highlight concerns about climate change and how it would affect his country. So what went wrong? A human rights crisis is what happened. Just before former President Gayoom left office, he appointed some of his most ardent allies to the most important judicial positions. In essence, a constitutional time bomb was left for President Nasheed to deal with, and of course, the courts were extremely hostile to any reforms. Anni had detained a judge in his attempt to reform the regressive justice system, which is something we and the Commonwealth should have helped him with long ago. I hope the Minister can address that in his remarks.
On 7 February, we were told that President Nasheed had resigned and that the vice-president had taken over. It was all constitutional and above board, we were told. Well, I for one do not buy into that story. I believe that there was a coup in Male and that Anni Nasheed was forced to resign at gunpoint. There were riots all over the city; many of my friends were beaten and tortured by the police, and there were dreadful breaches of human rights.
I met former President Nasheed in Parliament on 17 September to see how we could help. One of the main outcomes of the meeting was that there had to be fair and free elections. He was concerned that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group had to be strengthened—a point to which I should like the Minister to respond. He was also concerned about the reform that was needed to make the country once again democratic and fair. He wrote to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister about the matter and, indeed, met the Foreign Secretary while he was here.
In October, I was shocked and saddened to see disturbing pictures of Anni being arrested by tens of police in full riot gear. Those of us who know Anni know that he is a very calm and charismatic man who would not cause any trouble. After being arrested, he was taken on a boat to an island prison, where he was held. Tomorrow in the courts, we will see whether Anni is to stand trial over his decision to imprison the member of the judiciary whom I mentioned.
What a change: from seeing Anni—this humble man—win more than 50% of the vote, to seeing him stand in a dock. I have grave concerns about whether his trial will be fair, and, if he is found guilty, about whether he would be able to lead his party into the free and fair elections we have been promised next year.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and pay tribute to her tireless work for democracy in the Maldives. Are not the current Government in the Maldives placing themselves in a supremely ironic situation? They criticise the former President for interfering with the judiciary, and now it seems they are using judicial processes to frustrate a free and fair election. Is not the message we need to send to them that the guarantee of a true democracy is an independent judiciary, and that they had better make sure that is so?
Karen Lumley
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) will address in his speech.
We are all very proud to be part of the Commonwealth family and the Commonwealth must stand up for its newest democracy, the Maldives. I urge the Minister and our Government to apply whatever pressure they can to the Maldivian Government and the Commonwealth to ensure that a great man and a democrat can get on and do what he does so well: campaign for democracy to return to the Maldives. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Thank you, Mrs Brooke, for calling me to speak and it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) for her tireless work over the last five years in the Maldives. I share her passion for the Maldives, as the former President Nasheed went to school just outside my constituency. A considerable number of my constituents knew him during the many years he spent as a freedom fighter seeking democracy in his country.
I want today to reflect on my great sadness when this coup—it was indeed a coup—happened in February. Eighteen months ago, the former President was described by our Prime Minister as his “new best friend”, and yet, frustratingly, we cannot seem to do anything now to reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground in the Maldives.
Let us be clear that this issue is not just about one round of elections, but securing democracy for the long term and establishing the rule of law. Public bodies need to act in accordance with constitutional rights. In the Maldives, the rule of law was badly compromised before 2008 under the Gayoom regime. The judicial services commission published very weak evaluation criteria for the judges, and swore in the former President Gayoom’s appointed judges to permanent positions as supreme court members before the legislature could set down its criteria.
Let us be clear and get this on the record unambiguously: those judges included judges who had been found guilty of misconduct, judges with cases pending against them and judges who were under criminal investigation. Cases that were never brought to completion or sentencing include: Abdulla Hameed, brother of the deposed President Gayoom, for fraud; Algeen Abdul Gayoom, half-brother of President Gayoom, for corruption; and Isthafa Ibrahim Maniku, head of the prisons division under President Gayoom, for torture and cruelty. Those are serious allegations, and these individuals are now in the judiciary, judging and professing that there will be a fair trial for the deposed President Nasheed.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) for securing this debate, the importance of which was brought home to me in October when I met two members of the Maldives Parliament and the former high commissioner of the Maldives, very shortly after Anni’s arrest. Not only had he been arrested, but they informed me that several members of the Maldives Parliament—I believe as many as 13—had been arrested and charged with criminal offences, coincidentally all at much the same time. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) agree that democracy is a fragile flower that we cannot take for granted, but must work at and protect; that when the going gets rough we have to stand with our friends in other countries and be counted; and that we should do so now for the Maldives?
John Glen
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which expresses extremely well the guts of the case that we are all bringing today to Westminster Hall.
As I was saying, the allegations against the “judges”—if one can call them that—are very serious. For example, the allegation made against Abdulla Mohamed, the chief judge of the criminal court, by the attorney-general in 2005 was that he had asked children to act out an indecent act in court during a sexual abuse case. Such a case totally explains why the Maldives is in such a mess. The former President Nasheed, having secured a democratic mandate, simply sought to deal with a corrupt judiciary. He did so in good faith and with the support of the country. As a Government, we now need to stand up for him and fight for him, so that he has a fair trial and so that we can restore democracy, which was at such an early stage in the Maldives. It is so disappointing to see the Maldives in this state and to see its democracy so endangered, after such a promising start four years ago.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) on securing this important debate and on her passionate introduction of the subject. She is quite right to highlight the progress that has been made—admittedly from a pretty low base—and I thank her for her tireless determination and work to stimulate and support democracy in the Maldives.
I hope that the House will understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has specific ministerial responsibility for the Maldives, has already apologised to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch for not being here today. He would very much have liked to have been here to engage with this debate, but his other responsibilities mean that he has to be elsewhere.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for the points they made, which I will try to address during the course of my remarks.
It is absolutely right to point out the key link between the Maldives and the UK. Not only is the Maldives a long-standing friend and international partner of the UK, but our bilateral relationship has grown considerably during the past few years, particularly since the first multi-party presidential elections in 2008 and the subsequent parliamentary elections in 2009. Those were very positive developments in the process and commitment towards democratic reform in the Maldives. The British Government rightly welcome and encourage that progress and will encourage further progress on a consistent basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch expressed concern that the British Government and the Commonwealth have perhaps taken their eye off the ball after the success of free and inclusive elections in 2008. Although I appreciate her candour, I do not think that that is an entirely accurate reflection of matters, particularly in the context of the increasingly close bilateral relationship between the UK and the Maldives, and the fact that the wider international community is highly supportive of the Maldives across a range of areas, not least through EU support against the very grave threats that climate change poses for the Maldives. I will say a little bit more about the international community later. In addition, the British Council office in Male continues to support strong cultural relations between our two countries. The Commonwealth has also been a staunch supporter of democratic, economic and judicial reforms in the Maldives. Recently at the UN General Assembly, there was a meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which the UK does not sit on because of rotation, at which a commitment was given by the Commonwealth to provide additional support for civil society reforms and for judicial reforms, for the reasons that colleagues have pointed out today.
My hon. Friend was absolutely right to mention the events of 7 February this year, in which former President Nasheed was replaced as president. It needs to be made clear that those events follow a difficult constitutional period for the country. They were the subject of an inquiry by the Commission of National Inquiry, which has now concluded. The United Kingdom, with our Commonwealth partners, now wishes to move the relationship forward with the Maldives, and we fully accept the legitimacy of the current president and his Government.
Our clear view is that the Maldives cannot afford to go backwards after so much effort has been invested in its transition to democracy both by the Maldivians and by my hon. Friend and others who take a passionate interest in the country. The British Government, with the Commonwealth and other international partners, are determined to provide the necessary support and encouragement that the Maldives needs to maintain the right course of action. We continue to discuss and offer technical assistance that they and other international organisations can provide to help strengthen the judiciary and other key democratic institutions.
Let me turn to the specific legal process, as there are important facts that need to be put into the public domain. The current legal proceedings against former President Nasheed are a significant test for the Maldives. The international community is watching closely to see how any trial is conducted and to confirm that the proceedings are fair. The Inter-Parliamentary Union is due to send a mission to the Maldives this month, and there will be international observers at any trial of the former president.
The former president issued instructions on 16 January to arrest Abdulla Mohamed, chief judge of the criminal court. As my hon. Friend said, that led, for a variety of reasons, to widespread opposition demonstrations, culminating in the transfer of power from President Nasheed to his vice-president, Mohamed Waheed, on 7 February. Former President Nasheed was subsequently arrested on 8 October and released on 9 October, with two hearings set for Sunday 4 November.
It is important to state that on 4 November, the High Court suspended the trial proceedings by issuing an injunction against the special court, following an appeal by former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team based on procedural issues, specifically: the constitutional legitimacy of the magistrates court; the magistrates court conducting a trial on a different island to where it is based; and the legitimacy of an arrest warrant issued by the magistrates court, given that the court is not in the locality of defendant’s permanent address. As a result of the appeal, the special court could not convene as scheduled on Sunday. The High Court is due to make its ruling on those issues tomorrow, 8 November, and that will determine the next steps in the process. The Maldives Attorney-General welcomed the High Court’s injunction, which also impacts on the trial of four co-defendants in connection with the detention of the judge in February, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton.
As my fellow Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, confirmed to our hon. Friend the Member for Redditch during oral questions last week, we have sought and received assurances from President Waheed that any trial of former President Nasheed would be fair and free from political influence. At this stage of the proceedings, we have no reason to believe that that will not be the case. I have no doubt that the Maldivian Government and judiciary will feel the eyes of the world on them, and that they realise that a fair and impartial trial is most evidently in their national interests.
While we and other international partners recognise the independence of the court proceedings and the importance of that independence, we have made clear on several occasions our concern that any sentence that prevents former President Nasheed from participating in the 2013 electoral process would risk being seen as politically motivated. It is essential that the 2013 elections are as free, fair and fully inclusive as the new benchmark set by the 2008 election process, and we welcome the Maldivian Government’s decision to accept international observers at that process.
At this stage of the legal process, it would not be appropriate for us to speculate on the eventual outcome or to interfere directly with the judicial process. As I said, we accept the assurances offered by the current president that the process will be free from political interference. However, we encourage the Maldivian judiciary to ensure that the process is not subject to any undue delay, and express our hope that it is concluded in good time to avoid any negative impact on the electoral process next year. As a matter of the utmost importance, we also continue to urge all political parties in the Maldives to work together to implement the recommendations of the Commission of National Inquiry in order to further strengthen democratic institutions in the Maldives.
I confirm that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group is concerned: it discussed the issue at length at the UN General Assembly—a meeting that was supposed to go on for 45 minutes went on for five hours. The current Maldivian Government have no popular mandate from the 2008 electoral process, which was a success. It is therefore vital that the 2013 elections are transparent, fully inclusive and free, so that the people of the Maldives can determine who governs them. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch and other hon. Friends that, together with the Commonwealth and international partners, we will continue to follow developments in the Maldives very closely in the coming months.