Parliament rejects emergency motion alleging discrimination in remand rulings

Parliament has rejected an emergency motion alleging discrimination in the remand periods granted to those arrested on different charges.

Speaker Abdul Raheem Abdulla said the motion, submitted by MDP Galolhu South MP Meekail Ahmed Naseem, was rejected because it did not meet the conditions stated in Article 192(g) of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

According to the rule, an emergency motion must seek to draw the government’s attention to a matter or criticize its actions or inaction.

“However, the matter sent by the Honorable Member does not meet the above conditions mentioned in 192(g),” the Speaker said.

In his motion, MP Meekail alleged that courts had been inconsistent in granting remand periods. He noted that suspects accused of entering Velana International Airport and robbing Bank of Maldives employees at knifepoint were given five days’ remand, while a man arrested for attempting to leave a cafe' without paying was given 10 days’ remand. Both incidents occurred on Monday, he said.

He also pointed to the 15 day remand given to those arrested during the MDP protest on October 3, compared to the three-day remand of suspects in the case of a woman's fall from a rooftop in Male'.

Meekail argued that shorter remand periods for serious crimes and longer ones for minor offences amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

Courts typically grant shorter remand periods if a suspect requests legal counsel but a lawyer is not immediately available, in order to give time to arrange one. Repeat offenders, however, are generally placed under longer custody.