Police seek Supreme Court guidance on arrest and detainment

Claiming that they have legal “difficulties” in arresting and detaining individuals suspected of criminal behavior, the Maldives Police Services has requested the Supreme Court of the Maldives to provide guidance in the matter.

In a press meeting held at the Police Iskandar Koshi last night, the police said that they had filed the request at the Supreme Court through the Prosecutor General’s Office.

A press meeting was held by the police to brief the media about their actions regarding conflicts that occurred last Thursday, near Enderimaage, the private residence of former President Maumoon Abdul Qayyoom and his family.

A vandalizing mob let loose by the leadership of ruling Maldivian Democratic Party attacked the private residence and threw pieces of log and stone at the house, causing damage. During the chaos that followed, a piece of log hit one of the bystanders who was severely injured and has since being in the hospital under care. The police arrested Ghassan Maumoon on Monday, claiming that the youngest son of former President Maumoon was being arrested on suspicion that he was the one who threw the piece of wood that injured the bystander.

Ghassan’s lawyers filed a lawsuit the very day, and the Criminal Court ordered the police to produce Ghassan in Court that day. In the hearing, the Court decided that the police had acted in contravention to the law in arresting Ghassan. Following the decision, the police have decided to discontinue carrying out their duties under Articles 46 and 48 of the Constitution and laws and regulations made under these two articles, saying that they were pushed into confusion as to the meanings of these legal injunctions due to the decision of the Criminal Court.

While many believe that the action of the police has been made under instructions from the MDP government, which “has constantly tried to harass the Maldivian Judiciary” and also “out of spite”, the police said last night that they were under genuine “difficulties” in enforcing Article 46 of the Constitution.

“As the Criminal Court decided that we arrested Ghassan Maumoon against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in interpreting Article 46 of the Constitution, we now have some difficulties in acting in accord with the said Article”, said Mohamed Jinaah, Superintendent of Police. “We are now trying to solve this constitutional issue. We want to know how we can arrest and detail individuals seen committing or about to commit crimes. We are working with the Prosecutor General in order to get advice from the Supreme Court, and if my information is accurate, the PG has already sent the matter to the Supreme Court”, Jinaah also said.

Meanwhile, the police had yesterday released 11 suspects arrested and detained, including some detained under court orders, saying that “they should do treat everyone equally”, referring to the case of Ghassan Maumoon.

While Jinaah claimed that the police would always respect the decisions of the Court, he insisted that the police had evidence that the piece of log that injured a bystander during the MDP-led violence against former President’s private residence was thrown by Ghassan Maumoon. He thus said that Ghassan had admitted to going out to the balcony of an upper floor of the house while the incident occurred. Jinaah also said that 8 different people “told the police about Ghassan’s participation in the demonstrations”, and that the police forensic team had found “similar pieces of log from within the premises of Enderimaage”.

The police also showed a CCTV footage that, according to them, substantiated the accusation that it was Ghassan Maumoon who threw the log. The video shows a falling log hitting one of the gathered persons, and does not show from where it came, or who threw it.

A legal expert, on condition of anonymity, said that the police were “talking rubbish”. “The police neither have any reasonable evidences suggesting that Ghassan threw the log at the vandalizing mob, nor are there any circumstances which, in accordance with the law, he can be kept in detention. Clearly, whether a person was arrested in accordance with the law, and whether there are sufficient grounds for keeping the person in detention for investigation is a matter to be decided by the court, in accord with Articles 46 and 48 of the Constitution and Articles 13 and 14 of the Regulation on the Use of Police Powers and Discretions, and Articles 3 and 7 of the Regulation on Custody of Accused. The police are here being outrageous in challenging the court and trying to be the final authority in interpreting the law, and their behavior is a stain on civilized, democratic rule, and a very serious attack on rule of law itself. The police, and whoever is instigating them to act in this barbarous manner, should be ashamed of their shocking behavior”.