Progress on human rights was hampered by the ongoing political impasse between the
President and the opposition-dominated parliament. The government kept flogging as
a punishment in an apparent attempt to appease opposition demands to retain it in
Maldivian law. An opposition campaign for strict application of Shari’a stifled public
moves towards religious freedom. The government took no action to bring to justice
those responsible for human rights violations during the 30-year rule of former President
Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called for a moratorium on flogging, sparking
a national debate on the punishment in November. The debate ended in late December
with the opposition Adhalaat Party calling for strict application of Shari’a, and for flogging to be retained in law to “protect Islam”. Other opposition politicians
endorsed the call.
Statistics on the number of people flogged were not available, but human rights defenders
reported that courts frequently imposed the punishment, which was then carried out
behind the court premises.
Calls for religious freedom and tolerance were swiftly quashed by influential Islamist
groups and other opposition politicians.
On 14 December, police detained prisoner of conscience Ismail “Khilath” Rasheed, a
Sufi, for taking part in a peaceful demonstration in the capital, Malé, calling for
religious tolerance. During the protest, which was held on 10 December, he and fellow
activists were attacked by a group of around 10 men. Ismail Rasheed sustained a skull
fracture as a result. He was detained on grounds that his calls for religious tolerance
were unconstitutional. According to a constitutional provision, all Maldivians must
be Muslim. The authorities made no attempt to arrest or charge his attackers.
The Maldives continued to lack a codified body of laws capable of providing justice
equally to all. Some laws were too vaguely formulated to prevent miscarriages of
justice. Most judges had no formal training in law, yet exercised considerable discretion
– often based on their own interpretation of Islamic law – in determining an offence
and its appropriate punishment. A draft penal code intended to address these shortcomings
remained dormant in parliament.
