Download PDFÂ â€“ (Size: 272.1 KB)
Cautionary Notice to the Attorney General
This notice while clarifying certain matters, is an order to the Attorney General to cease all attempts to create discord and incite public hatred against the rulings, orders and decisions of the Civil Court.
1. Number One: It is evident that except for the trial courts, no other party holds the power to dispose a sentence or annul a ruling as Article 141 of the Constitution stipulates that the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, the High Court and the Trial Courts as established by law.
2. Number Two: Article 53 and 54 of Act No. 22/2002 (the Judicature Act of the Maldives) specify that the Civil Court has the power to adjudicate, to rule on and to enforce the rulings of all matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the court.
3. Number Three: Case No. 220/Cv-C/2016 of the Civil Court was adjudicated to enforce the ruling of Case No. 08/HC-A/2015 of the High Court.
4. Number Four: Some cases are adjudicated to enforce sentences and during the process of which, certain procedural measures are taken by the courts. Such measures include detaining a captain and confiscating the consignment of a ship in the ports of the Maldives to prevent the ship from leaving the port, holding a passport to prevent a person from leaving the country, freezing accounts of individuals and having the money brought to court, closing down shops, opening shops which have been closed down, evicting people from houses and shelters and issuing orders for people to be allowed back intoÂ houses and shelters. In Â cases relating to agriculture or livestock, a presiding judge often gives procedural orders to those involved in the dispute in orderÂ to protect and preserve the commodity and prevent its depreciation during the course of carrying out a sentence. The Attorney General and the government ministries have hitherto accepted that the prospects of enforcing court orders or rulings would be remote, if such orders or rulings were subject to the process of appeal. In addition, in cases related to debt, the fact that sentences such as house arrest, banishment or even imprisonment maybe annulled when the debt is paid off is testimony that such rulings related to implementing procedures may either be brought to an end on the completion of a sentence or when the claimant terminates the case.
5. Number Five: The rulings of a court maybe appealed, and during the process of appeal a ruling is either upheld or annulled or even ordered to be adjudicated again. It is deemed by the courts that the decisions of the appeal courts strengthen and complete the rulings of Judges and it is clear that Case No. 220/Cv-C/2016 of the Civil Court is no exception to the rule.
- Number Six: The judges who oversee cases registered at the courts will go according to the Constitution and the Laws and in instances where the Constitution or Laws are silent on an issue the Judges will go according to the prescribed principle of Islamic Shariah related to that particular matter, as stated in Article 142 of the Constitution, In the dhaleel of Islamic Shariah coming from the Quran, Sunnah, Ijmaau and giyaas, uruf, gauluâ€™ sahaabi, Sharuâ€™ uman gabulana, isthishaabu, isthihusaanu, masaalihul marusalaa and such judicial tenets as sadhudharaai and the manbauâ€™s from which Laws are created based on legislation, customs, religion, equity, adjudication, and Islamic jurisprudence and upon which is based the sentences passed (isthinbaath), and processed through thafseeru and thathbeeq and as such a judge passes a verdict or sentence based on ijthihaadhee standards and through the view point of a lawyer the sentence or verdict passed by the judge is viewed to be invalid or the power of such a sentence or verdict is nullified (nafee) and through such statements lends to discord, this is not a permissible act taking into consideration the highest general interest of the state and this is evident in the fact that there are higher courts which can adjudicate and pass a verdict overriding the previous ruling passed by judges on the same matter.
- Number Seven: Apart from an appeal court which states that a verdict of a lower court is invalid, it is clear that the Attorney General of the state or any other party do not possess the constitutional power to proclaim that a verdict is invalid or lend support to non-adherence to the verdict.
- Number Eight: The Attorney General of the state is a legal representative in court, and the statements of the Attorney General will be validated or invalidated by the courts and hence it is clear that the Attorney General or the Attorney Generalâ€™s Office cannot decide to invalidate any court verdict.
- Number Nine: Any verdict by a court will be deemed valid until a higher court has not ruled otherwise, and it is not permissible within the decorum of the courts for the Attorney General or any other party to talk in a manner which could facilitate and support non adherence to a verdict.
- Number Ten: The fact that the Attorney General listed the points of appeal of Case Number 220/Cv-C/2016 in a statement on the website of the Attorney Generalâ€™s Office while this was not practiced previously when the Attorney General appealed court verdicts, demonstrates that the Attorney General is neither objective nor consistent in following administrative procedures.
- Number Eleven: While case number 220/Cv-C/2016 of the Civil Court involves a dispute between a group of individuals and was adjudicated Â in relation to the enforcement Â of a Â sentence of case number 2015/HC-A/08 of the High Court and that the Attorney General had not in similar cases before advocated on behalf of an individual in response to a court ruling but decided to act differently in this case shows that the Attorney General has failed to Â maintain the constitutional principles of equality and impartiality in protecting the rights of the peopleÂ and that consequently his conduct undermined the interest of the state.
- Number Twelve: When taking action against parties who do not adhere to court sentences, the laws and regulations and the principals of the judges provide for the actions which can be taken against them, and it is evident that the Courts will never exhaust means to implement a sentence passed by the courts.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Attorney General and the Attorney Generalâ€™s Office are not Â exempted when exercising the powers of the Regulation on Safeguarding the Eminence of the Courts and this notice hereby cautions the Attorney General and others that Â irrespective of his position should the Â Attorney General continue to act in this manner, he too shall be brought to trial before the court and for the purpose of safeguarding the greater interest of the state and for the sake of justice, he too shall be prosecutedÂ along the same line as those who act in a manner which encourages non-compliance with the rulings of the courts or influence a case or undermine the eminence of the courts while a case is still ongoing and when the process for appeal has not been completed.
04 Sawwaal 1437
09 July 2016