Didn't get justice, this is an attack on judiciary: Azmiralda

Stopping the Supreme Court in its track is not an ordinary ocurrance, but an attack on Maldives' judiciary, said former judge Dr Azmiralda Zahir, after being removed from the Supreme Court today.

In a long statement issued immediately after her removal, Azmiralda said she did not get justice today. However, said this was not an individual attack on her, Mahaz or Husnu Suood alone.

"[This is] not something that can be lightly brushed off. I hope that once the rule of law prevails in this country, action will be taken in light of the citations I have filed and justice will be carried out against all leaders and employees of various levels who were involved in subverting the Supreme Court of this country," Azmiralda said in a statement.

Azmiralda said she was never under any misconception about how power over the three branches of the state—including government and institutions that are said to be independent—was exercised, even when she first began her pursuit of justice. Azmiralda said she would have been sacked long ago in secret had all the mainstream media in the country not reported news of her cases in detail, despite the difficult circumstances.

"I thank the media for their attention and role in bringing the facts to the people. I believe the media paid so much attention to this issue because it is the fourth estate [of the government], and a guardian to uphold the constitution, laws and rights of the people. Media did not take my said. They took the side of the law," Azmiralda said.

Azmiralda said she could prove every case and every aspect contained in every complaint to the Judicial Service Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission and every state agency against her, and that she has evidence to support it. What does not exist is an institution that would listen, investigate and establish justice, she said.

"I don't want anyone else to suffer what my husband and family have suffered because of my job. I want to see those who participated in framing innocent people using the state's resources and committed crimes get their due punishment someday through a fair process," Azmiralda said.

"I always pray the best for Maldives and its judiciary."

Azmiralda also said:

- In her roughly twenty-four years in the legal, judicial profession, she never abused her position to influence any person for her own benefit or for the benefit of anyone else and there is no one who would be able to provide evidence suggesting otherwise.

- Even in the middle of everything, she did not set out to defend herself and reputation without submitting to pressure and leaning towards a certain ideology, oblivious to the fact that the case would end in her favour. She also said she did not want to choose the easy way out, but for the country to see the poor plight of the country's judges.

Although the constitution envisions the executive and legislative branch to be independent, the judicial branch's power is narrowed, with the administrative and financial aspects of the judicial branch being managed with the involvement of the other two branches. Unlike individuals, the fate of every judge in Maldives is in the hands of political people who are in the other two branches.

- That the constitution needs to be amended so that the judicial branch is granted the power to carry out justice in a way that it is not under the other two powers, but act as watchdogs.

- No institution in Maldives addressed her concerns and JSC chose to remove her with a fabricated report while the ACC chose to indulge in corruption and meddle with the Supreme Court.

While the parliament chose to remove Azmiralda and Mahaz today, the parliament's Counsel General Fathimath Filza told the parliament's judiciary committee that JSC had not followed proper procedure in investigating the matter.

In her recommendation to the committee, Filza said the JSC had violated the principle of equal treatment for all guaranteed by the Constitution and the law by acting differently in deciding cases submitted to the commission regarding judges.

However, the report sent by the judiciary committee to the floor said the investigation was initiated by JSC based on information received from an individual, and that Article 23 of the JSC Act granted JSC the authority to do so.

The report also said Article 22 of the Act allows the commission to investigate cases even when the internal committee that decides on investigating cases moves against probing into a specific matter. It also said there were no procedural issues in investigating the case.

Both judges have asked the parliament to give them an opportunity to appear and share their concerns. The Bar Council has also requested an opportunity to appear before the committee to share its concerns.