#155 Ahmed Nazim Sattar
Age: 28 years
Profile:
Allegations of maltreatment:
--- --- ---
4 May 2006
Cousin of detainee reported the police arrested detainee at around
23:30 on
3 May 2006 and
released detainee without charge at around 02:30 on
4 May 2006.
Cousin of detainee reported the detainee was attending a gathering to mark the
World Press Freedom Day at the southeast end of Male’ on
3 May 2006. Cousin of detainee reported policemen in “star
force” uniform handcuffed detainee behind his back and transported him to
Dhoonidhoo Island Detention Centre on the same day.
Cousin of detainee noted a press delegation consisting members of RSF witnessed
the arrest of detainee.
Cousin of detainee reported the police released the detainee at around
02:30 on
4 May 2006 and
transported detainee back to Male’.
--- --- ---
18 April 2006
Detainee reported he received a chit from the Office of the Attorney General on
6 April 2006
informing him that he had been charged for Disobedience to Order. Detainee
reported the chit did not inform him when or to which order he had disobeyed.
Detainee reported the Criminal Court summoned him for a hearing on
18 April 2006.
Detainee reported he attended the court on
18 April 2006. Detainee reported he noticed that the prosecuting lawyer was the
same lawyer who represents the prosecution for his brother Mohamed Nasheed,
Chairperson of the principal opposition party MDP. Detainee reported the lawyer
assured the court audience that he had no personal issues against the detainee's
family and that the lawyer was not present in the court in his own will but
because his seniors had instructed him to. Detainee reported the prosecuting
lawyer asked him to provide a statement saying that that he understood the
charges brought against him. Detainee reported asked to correct the statement to
say that he he did not understand the charges brought against him.
Detainee reported he plead not guilty to whatever charge had been brought
against him and explained to the judge that he did not have enough time to
obtain legal assistance for his trail. Detainee reported the judge instructed
him to retain a lawyer within the next three days and inform the courts
accordingly.
--- --- ---
17 April
2006
Detainee reported he received a chit from the Office of the Attorney General on
6 April 2006 informing him that he had been charged for Disobedience to Order.
Detainee reported the chit did not inform him when or to which order he had
disobeyed.
Detainee reported he received summons from the Criminal Court on 17 April 2006
calling him to the Criminal Court on 18 April 2006.
Detainee reported the Attorney General’s Office did not inform him earlier that
there was a pending case against him. Detainee reported he has not had enough
time to retain a lawyer and prepare for the hearing, hence he has to attend the
first hearing of his trial without legal assistance.
Detainee expressed his view that the Maldivian government may be trying to
intimidate him by digging out a pending case as a result of the articles he has
been writing for the Minivan Daily criticizing the government.
--- --- ---
Ahmed
Nazim Sattar, sub-editor of
Minivan and coordinator the Maldivian Detainee Network, was summoned to the
Police Headquarters on
---
--- ---
Nazim Sattar reported that it had been one year since he submitted application for registering a weekly newspaper called “Goveli” [the Crier] at the Ministry of Information but so far the authorities have refused to allow registration.
What follows are details of attempts made by Nazim Sattar, the Applicant, to register his weekly newspaper.
1. Application forms for registering Goveli Newspaper under the trusteeship and editorship of Nazim Sattar was submitted to the Information Ministry on 26 January 2004. The forms submitted included an application form to register newspapers (Form No 02/04) and an Offenses Clarifying Form (01/04) that demonstrated that all relevant government departments had verified that the Applicant had no criminal record.
2. The Applicant was arrested on 13 February 2004 on suspicion of “publicly distributing documents written to create contempt amongst the public towards the Government and planning to hold an unlawful assembly” (Ministry of Defence letter no: NSS-2-SJ/2004/186 dated 22 February 2004).
3. The Applicant was held in Dhoonidhoo Detention Centre in solitary confinement for 33 days without charge and transferred to house arrest on 16 March 2004 and later released to the confines of Male’.
4. On 2 June 2004 the Attorney General’s Office charged the Applicant for Disobedience to Order (lawsuit no: 383/JC/2004). The charge was as follows
“ Ahmed Nazim Abdul Sattar having photocopied written material called ‘Appeal’ and ‘Newsletter’ named after the “Maldivian Democratic Party” and having given these photocopied material to Ismail Zilah of Graphite of Henveiru District and Ahmed Falah of Kudaveryomatee-ge of Maafannu District for distribution among other people; and Ismail Zilah and Ahmed Falah having distributed these material; and since the material distributed with the participation of these three people contained untrue expressions that may cause contempt between the Government elected by the People in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives and the Public and may imperil Public Order; Ahmed Nazim Abdul Sattar, Ismail Zilah and Ahmed Falah are charged for Disobedience to Order under article 88(a) of the Penal Code with reference to Law 4/68 (Common Laws) article 8 number 2”.
5. On 6 June 2004 the Attorney General’s office halted trial proceedings of the Applicant before any hearings were heard in court.
6. On 13 June 2004 the Applicant filed a complaint at the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives regarding the delay in registering the newspaper. The complaint was as follows:
“Complaints to Human Rights Commission of the Maldives
FULL NAME: Ahmed Nazim Abdul Sattar
Nature of Complaint
(If it is a breach of a Fundamental Right, please state which right has been breached)
Obstructing freedom if expression as stipulated by articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of Maldives.
Institution complained against
Ministry of Information Arts and Culture
Details
Please give date, time, place, etc. (Additional sheets may be attached to this form)
I requested the Information Ministry to register a newspaper on my editorship on 26th Jan 2004 but so far they have been delaying permission on the grounds that I have a case pending. My charge sheet (attached) clearly shows the charges do not contradict rules 10 (d) and (e) of publishing guidelines issued by Information [Ministry]. They have no right to withhold my application to publish a newspaper.
Signed by Ahmed Nazim Abdul Sattar
Date: 13/6/2004
7. On 13 June 2004 the Applicant wrote a letter to the Minister of Information regarding the delay in registering his newspaper, the translation of which follows:
“G.Kenereege
Malè
To the Minister of Information, Arts and Culture,
After Salutations and Salaams
Re: Registration of Goveli [the Crier] newspaper
With reference to my submission of the request form to your Ministry regarding the registration of Goveli [the Crier] weekly newspaper please note:
1. Given that four months have elapsed since the request for the paper’s registration was submitted and that no decision so far has been taken from your Ministry concerning the issue, I met with the Director of the Ministry Mr Ali Shareef today (13 June 2004). Mr Shareef told me my registration request has been withheld for the time being due to a case of mine pending at the Ministry of Defence.
2. Mr Ali Shareef also told me that had the aforementioned case not been pending at the Defence Ministry, “Goveli newspaper would have been duly registered by now”.
3. You will acknowledge that when I submitted the application form to register Goveli newspaper no outstanding offense on my part was pending at any relevant government authority. This was proven by the Offences Clarifying Form I submitted along with the Goveli registration form.
4. Leaving aside the question upon what right you came to know about a pending case of mine at the Defence Ministry without me declaring it to you, I would like to inform you that the case which had surfaced lately has been sent from the Defence Ministry to the Attorney General’s Office who has sent it to the Criminal Court with a charge against me.
5. The charge against me (Disobedience to Order, a copy of the précis of the charge sheet from the Criminal Court is attached herewith) clearly proves that it does not contradict in any way the conditions provisioned upon the Trustee of a newspaper (No.9) nor those required from the Editor of a newspaper (No.10) as stipulated by the “Rules Governing to the Publication of Newspapers, Magazines and other such Items” issued by your Ministry. (cf.http://www.maldiviandetainees.net/RelevantLegalDocuments/RulesGoverningThePublicationOfNewspapersMagazinesAndOtherSuchItems.htm)
6. And even if I am charged
for something, let me remind you that the Constitution of the
The acceptance of my respects is desired.
Your Servant
(signed)
Ahmed Nazim Abdul Sattar
8. On
9. On 19 June 2004 the Applicant wrote a letter to the Human Rights Commission stating that upon receiving the Human Rights letter, the Applicant telephoned the Information Ministry Director Ali Shareef on 17 June 2004 to enquire why the registration of the newspaper is being delayed when “the Ministry had not prohibited the registration” and that the Director replied he had “nothing to say regarding the issue”.
The Applicant therefore requested the Human Rights Commission to look into the matter further.
10. On 20 July 2004 the Information Ministry wrote a letter (no. 131-D/2004/527) requesting the Applicant that article 10 (c) of the Newspaper Regulations states that the Editor of a newspaper “must have the academic qualifications required for an editorship and must have completed a journalism course or must have worked in journalism for a minimum of 5 years.”
Therefore the Ministry requested the Applicant to provide documents that display that he had 5 years experience in the field.
11. Following the letter the Applicant wrote a letter to the Human
Rights Commission (dated
12. On 20 July 2004 the Applicant produced documents to the Information Ministry that displayed he had 8 years experience in the field of journalism according to Applicant.
13. The next day on 21 July
2004 the Applicant received a letter from the Ministry of Information (letter
no: 131-D/2004/531 dated 20 July 2004) stating that “the document produced by
Ahmed Nazim Abdul Sattar
did not acknowledge that he had five years experience in the field and did not
clarify on which newspapers or magazines the documents were published.
Therefore having failed to meet the conditions cited in article 10 (c) of the Newspaper
Regulations, “Goveli” newspaper cannot be
registered under your editorship”. The Applicant noted the Information
Ministry letters requesting proof of journalism experience and rejection of
editorship on Applicant were both dated
14. On
15. The Applicant wrote a letter to the President of the
16. The President’s Office replied to the Applicant (letter no.
C-5938/2004 dated
17. The issue remains pending
at the Human Rights Commission of the
--- ---- ----
Detainee (28 years), chief organizer of the
Detainee Network, reported he was summoned to the Police at
Detainee went to the investigation with his lawyer Husnu Suoodh. The lawyer, however, was not allowed to intervene or speak during the interrogation. The investigation was conducted by Lance Corporal Mohamed Riyaz, Chief Investigator Ali Ahmed and Mr Shateeh, Legal Assistant.
Lance Corporal Mohamed Riyaz began the investigation by asking the detainee’s occupation and other details. When the detainee gave the necessary details Mohamed Riyaz informed the detainee that he was summoned to the police on a report that he had been to Burahimaa-ge of Maafannu District and spoken to Mrs Sakeena, mother of Ahmed Zuhoor
(cf. http://www.maldiviandetainees.net/individuals/152Zuhoor.htm).
Detainee informed the Police he did not know who this Sakeena was and did not know the house or anything about the family and had never set foot on the place.
L. Corporal Riyaz then started writing a rough statement with his hand as follows: “I [Ahmed Nazim Sattar] work as Director at the Oriental Academic Centre. I have no knowledge of Sakeena Burahimaa-ge of Maafannu District of Male’ nor his son Ahmed Zuhoor and I have never set foot on their house”.
Chief Investigator Ali Ahmed
then asked the detainee that it appeared to him that the detainee was not
speaking the truth and that the Police had got reports that the detainee went
to Sakeena’s house around
The Chief Investigator enquired why the detainee spoke this way against the Police and against public interest.
The detainee again reiterated that he did not know what the Police was talking about and had never known the family in question.
Chief Investigator then enquired why the people in the house would report to the Police that the detainee, specifically, out of all people, went to their house. Detainee replied that the Police would have to ask the question to those who filed the report and not the detainee.
The Chief Investigator again kept repeating the same questions of whether the detainee went to Sakeena’s house. Detainee informed the investigating team that he was getting quite bored with Chief Inspector Ali Ahmed repeatedly asking the same questions when the detainee was denying any knowledge of the incident and whether somebody else other than Ali Ahmed – Lance Corporal Mohamed Riyaz for instance – would repeat the questions again as that would be less monotonous.
Lance Corporal Mohamed Riyaz replied that questions would be asked by the Chief Investigator.
The Detainee again informed the Police that he was not going to change his statement and if the Police did not believe what he was saying they may as well take his to Dhoonihdoo and lock him up in a cell in solitary confinement since they are so keen to do that. The Police replied that they have not decided as yet whether the detainee would be taken to Dhoonidhoo.
At this point Investigator Ali Ahmed told the detainee to wait outside of the interrogation cell, in the inner reception room, to refresh his mind and perhaps he would then remember what actually happened when he came back to the interrogation room.
After about 20 minutes at the inner reception room, during which time the Chief Investigator went upstairs for some purpose, the detainee was brought again into the interrogation room. Detainee’s lawyer was beside him. The three police officers had also reassembled in the interrogation room. Chief Investigator Ali Ahmed again asked the detainee whether he went to speak to Mrs Sakeena on 17 March.
The detainee again informed the police that he knew not what they were talking about and that they could take him to Dhoonidhoo if they so wished.
Police enquired why the detainee was so keen to go to Dhoonidhoo. Detainee reported that when people go on the Hajj they make all preparations for their death and likewise when people come to the Police Station they have Dhoonidhoo in mind. And perhaps Dhoonidhoo was one of those enchanted islands that one had to visit if previously visited and that the Detainee was kept in the island for 33 days in solitary confinement in February 2004 as the interrogators were fully aware and had not visited for more than a year now. It was Chief Investigator and Legal Assistant Shateeh who interrogated detainee on that instance.
The Police then informed the
detainee that they were releasing the detainee. Detainee was released around
--- ---- ----