In an exclusive
interview with Haveeru, former Permanent Representative to the United
Nations Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed who resigned shortly after the now
controversial resignation of Nasheed on February 7, Ghafoor reveals the
reasons and questions he had with the regime change which prompted him
to tender his resignation.
“Its
(transfer of power) certainly superficial. President Waheed was sworn
in after Nasheed announced his resignation in accordance with the
constitution. But a government should never be ousted by taking to the
streets. It’s clearly not how this should have happened. ,” the seasoned
diplomat who had also served in the Foreign Service during former
President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s administration said.
President
Nasheed had resigned amid weeks of opposition led protests over the
arrest and subsequent detention of Chief Criminal Judge Abdulla Mohamed
capped off by a police mutiny. Since stepping down however, Nasheed has
claimed that he had resigned under duress which he labels as a “coup
d’état” backed by his successor and then the Vice President Mohamed
Waheed Hassan Manik.
Detailing
his views on the role of the mutinous police officers and later the
military in the circumstances that led to Nasheed’s resignation, Ghafoor
said there had been an “unacceptable level of involvement of the
security forces.”
“Yes
there certainly were constitutionally questionable acts by Nasheed
during his tenure as the President. But whether he was fit to remain as
President or not was up to the people. It’s not the mandate of the
security forces but the mandate of the people. It is their right. But
due to what transpired, that right and mandate of the people have now
been denied,” Ghafoor stressed.
“Nasheed
was always unorthodox. Some of his actions had been outside the box of
constitutional governance. But there were institutions even if not the
strongest, the opposition and the Parliament to keep him in check. There
were entities in place to rein him in whenever Nasheed strayed out of
that box. It’s not a question of how Nasheed governed, but how he was
removed.”
Ghafoor
also raised questions over the appointments of Abdulla Riyaz as the
Police Commissioner and Mohamed Nazim as the Defence Minister when they
both had been leading the negotiations with Nasheed and the mutinying
police officers at the Republic of Square on the morning of February 7.
Video
recordings of the day have revealed Nazim relaying the only condition
of resignation presented to Nasheed to the police and military officers
gathered at the Square. Subsequent jubilant scenes of celebrations have
also been recorded after seemingly, news of Nasheed’s acceptance of the
condition filtered out of the army barracks to the Republic Square even
before Nasheed had officially announced that he was stepping down.
“Nazim
and Riyaz negotiated Nasheed’s resignation and their subsequent
appointment as the heads of the security forces certainly raises
questions,” Ghafoor said.
Touching
on the subject of President Waheed’s alleged role in the transition of
government, Ghafoor highlighted what he believed was dubious actions of
the then VP. On that note, he highlighted the mysterious meeting Waheed
had with the then leaders of the opposition parties in the wee hours of
morning just days before Nasheed’s resignation.
“The
VP has a constitutional obligation to perform the duties assigned by
the President. Especially during such a critical juncture, a meeting of
this nature should have been official. An on record meeting where one,
he should have had the consent of the president, two, minutes of the
meeting should have been taken and three, he should have briefed the
cabinet of events and discussions of the meeting. But the fact that such
basic formalities had been ignored leaves room for doubt over the
transparency and what actually transpired during that meeting,” Ghafoor
detailed.
“We
now know that the nation was on full alert that night. At such a
critical stage the government should have been speaking in one voice.
But the VP chose to make a statement on private television station VTV,
owned by one of the opposition leaders when he had access and option to
do the same on State television MNBC One.”
“I’m
not a legal expert and hence I’m not in a position to comment on any
legal aspects. But these events are indeed ethically and morally
questionable.”
Pointing
out the address to the nation made by Waheed after taking the oath of
office, Ghafoor said he felt as though it was a “victory speech.”
“Waheed
in his address implied that the people had won. But for me the people
had lost. Police mutinying and protesting in a place (Republic Square)
where such demonstrations are banned that led to Nasheed’s resignation
was really shameful,” Ghafoor said.
“It was a sad, disappointing and shameful day in the history of the Maldives.”
Comments