Police Integrity Commission - NIPSA

AP'?.

E .K

Police Integrity Commission Male', Maldives

Enelish Translation (ln the event of ony discrepancy in the English Translation ond the DhivehiVersion, the DhivehiVersion will prevail)

Findings and Conclusions of the Investigation Conducted by the Police Integrity Commission to Determine Police Conduct in Dispersing the MDP Protest in Male'on 8th February 2OI2

1.

lntroduction

This investigation was conducted by Police lntegrity Commission (PlC) on its own initiative to determine Police conduct in dispersing the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Protest in Male'on 8th February 2072. During the investigation the Commission aimed to answer the following questions:

L.

Did the police use excessive force in dispersing the MDP protestors on 8th February }OLZ and how

was this exercised?

2.

Did individual members of the police abuse police power and inflict injury and carry out

3.

inhumane actions on members of the public? ls any senior police officer responsible for abuse of power by individual members of the police during protest dispersal and the immediate events that followed?

How the investisation was conducted

The case was investigated by a committee that included all five members of the Commission. The investigation was conducted through summoning people to the Commission and taking their statements, obtaining phone call logs of those considered to have played a lead role in the events and obtaining the videos of the incidents of that day.

The Commission interviewed and took 45 statement, inctuding senior police officers, members of the police Specialist Operations Command, other members of the police service, some officers from the Maldives National Defense Force, reporters who were covering the protest, former President Mohamed Nasheed, some Members of the People's Majlis belonging to MDP, and some members of MDP. Some of these persons were summoned by the Commission while others came forward to votunteer information

to the investigation, and some came in response to a public announcement by the Commission. The Commission obtained telephone call logs needed for the investigation through the Communications Authority of Maldives. Some of the logs were obtained under a court order. No call logs were received of persons not belonging to the Maldives Police Service at the time of the incidents, as the court refused

to issue an order regarding call logs of such persons.

Page L of 7 3302580

:

9ij

3302582

tt

20t25

-;i

,.2.i.-. .1.38

iS:: 1r* ,|Lr| g:ttL: 9:i

Police lntegrity Commission I Shaheedh Abdulla Zuhair Hin'gun I Mal6- 20125 Tel: 3302582 Fax: 3302580 wwwpic.org.mv | | | I [email protected]

The Commission obtained a total of 39 video clips and 49 photos during the investigation. Video clips and

photos were obtained from people who provided statements for the investigation, those downloaded by the Commission from the internet, video clips sent to the Commission by Television Maldives (WM) and Raajje 1V, and the Commission's recording of the telecast of Raajje TV on 8th February 2012.

The Commission requested all TV stations to assist in providing video footage of the February 8th MDP protest. VTV responded that, due to the prevalent conditions on 8th February and the incidents their staff encountered during their work that day, they did not capture any video footage; and, DhiTV responded that they did not have any videos of the protest that day. ln addition, as live coverage of the MDP protest

on 8th February was telecast only by Raajje TV, most of the video clips used in this investigation were those telecast from Raajje W. Individual policemen who had assaulted some members of the public were identified by the Commission by obtaining information from eye witnesses as the video clips revealed several cases of police brutality, and, by seeking assistance from both the Human Resource Department and the Forensic Department of the Maldives Police Service to confirm the identification. How the Commission Reached its Conclusions The Commission reached its conclusions on the basis of salient points in the witness statements, video clips, telephone call logs and the relevant laws. Conclusions were adopted by agreement among four of

the five members of the Commission. The member of the Commission who dissented, Commission President Shahindha lsmail, provided her dissenting statement separately.

2.

Findines and Conclusions of the Commission

2.I.

The Commission concludes that, for the following reasons, the MDP protest on 8th February 2Ot2 was dispersed bythe police in accordance with Section 6 ( ) and Section 6 (8) of the Police Act (5/2008) in view of the dangers that may occur if the protest was not dispersed then: 2.L.L: Video clips show that some of the protestors confronted the police and pounded on the shields;

2.1.2: Protestors had caused damage to places on their way to MMA 2.L.3: Investigations revealed that some protestors had weapons;

2.I.4:

2.2.

area;

The risk of difficulty in controlling the protest was likely if more time was given prior to dispersal, given the huge crowd of protestors and in view of 2.L.L,2.t.2 and 2.1.3, and the actions of the protestors.

The Commission concludes that, although no prior warnings were issued by the police before dispersal, the police had acted in accordance with Section 25of the "Regulationon Assemblv", in view of the huge crowd of protestors as opposed to the fewer troops of the security forces, and the prevalent conditions that existed at the time of dispersal as stated in 2.I, and the risk of grave dangers that may ensue if protest dispersal was delayed further:

2.3.

The Commission concludes that, during protest dispersal and in arresting protestors, individual

members of the police had acted in contravention of Article 54 of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives, Section 7 (a)(11) of the Police Act (5/2008); Section 16 (a) and Section 16 (dx1),(d)(2), (dX3) and (dX5) of the "Regulation on the Use of Weapons" vested by Sectio n 17 (c) of the Police Act (5/2008), and brutally assaulted protestors and subjected them to inhumane treatment, and used indecent language towards the protestors, for the following reasons: 2.3.7; lnvestigations revealed that the police had brutally assaulted MDP Chairperson Moosa Manik, M. Gulhazaaruge; Page?of 7

2.3.2:

Investigations revealed that an individual policeman had brutally assaulted Mohamed Niyaz, Gan'dhakoalhimaage, G.Dh Fares Maathodaa.

2.3.3:

The Commission had received witness statements and video clips that reveal that the police had inhumanely treated former President Mohamed Nasheed, MDP Chairperson Moosa Manik, M. Gulhazaaruge, and MDP member Maariya Ahmed Didi, Ma. Comrade Villa, inside "Niyaz Store".

2.3.4:

The Commission had received witness statements and video clips that reveal that two

policemen had brutally assaulted MDP member Maariya Ahmed Didi, Ma. Comrade Villa;

2.3.5:

The Commission had received witness statements that the police had brutally assaulted MDP member lmthiyaz Fahumy, M. Afza, and the report of the Commission's team who

visited Dhoonidhoo Detention Centre on 8th February 2OI2 indicate injuries had been inflicted on lmthiyaz Fahumy; 2.3.6: The Commission had received witness statements that three policemen had brutally assaulted MDP member Mohamed Shafeeq. H. Shafeequge' and video clips received at the Commission show three policemen pushing him and two policemen brutally assaulting Mohamed Shafeeq; 2.3.7: The Commission had received witness statements that two policemen had brutally assaulted MDP member Mohamed Gasam, Sunny Dale, G.Dh. Thinadhoo and video clips

received at the Commission reveal that police had dragged Mohamed Gasam on the ground;

2.3.8: The Commission had

received witness statements that lsmail Maniku, M. Charlot, an MDP protestor on 8th March 2Ot2 had been brutally assaulted by the police, and the video clips received at the Commission reveal that lsmail Maniku had been injured;

2.3.9:

The Commission had received video clips of 15 different unidentified individuals being brutally assaulted by the police.

2.3.10: The Commission had received documentation from the A.D.K. Hospital and the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (|.G.M.H.) that 8 and 7 people, respectively, had sought medical attention from ADK Hospital and IGMH, due to police brutality; and that the video clips received at the Commission reveal that one person seeking treatment for head injuries at the ADK Hospital and 11 people being treated for head injuries at the IGMH.

2.4. 2.5.

Page3

2.3.LL: The video clips received at the Commission reveal the police wielding batons and brutally assaultingL4 individuals and a policeman striking a person on the head with a baton. 2.3.t2: The Commission had received witness statements and video clips that reveal police brutally assaulting MDP member lbrahim Rasheed, M. Pompiya with batons; The Commission has decided to investigate the cases of police brutality listed in 2.3 separately and take necessary legal action. The Commission concludes, for the reasons below, that there is no issue of negligence of senior pof ice officers in dispersing the MDP Protest on 8th February 2ot2: 2.5.L: What was initially held by the MDP that day was the party's congress at Dharubaaruge' and no information was received about a protest prior to the protest march; 2.5.2: As the then President Mohamed Nasheed resigned from office on 7th February, clearly stating that should he remain in the countr/s leadership the citizens may face major damages, there were no grounds to assess that his political party may lead such a protest the following day; of 7 3302580

: 99i

3302582

.if

20t25

-ji

,.2.i.-. .2-7&

Police Integrity Commission, Shaheedh Abdulla Zuhair Hin'gun,

i,)3t ).'

ej3*,f g:ttz: 9ti

Mab'-?ll2lTel

3302582 Fax: 3302580

2.5.3:

The tntelligence Department of the police was not functioning routinely on 8th February

due to the changes that were brought to the department as a result of the incidents of 7th February.

2.6.

out the unlawful activities should be held responsible individually in accordance with the SectionT (aX17) of the Police Act (5/2OOB), that the investigations confirmed that senior police officers had

The Commission concludes that individual members of the police who carried

continuously instructed the police to act in accordance with the Section 7 (aXg) and, that there is no issue of negligence of senior police officers for the following reasons: 2.6.I: The police officers who were dispatched to control the protest were advised to follow laws and regulations;

2.6.2:

None of the senior police officers had commanded the police who were dispatched to

2.6.3:

control the protest to use force unlawfully; The senior police officer in charge of the Special Operations was deployed immediately when there were signs of the possibility of the protestors and the police heading for a major confrontation that would result in loosing command and control, and that within 10 minutes command and control was regained.

2.6.4:

the protest took approximately 10 minutes, there are no grounds to conclude that senior police officers had enough time to prevent brutality of individual

As the dispersal of

policemen.

3.

Recommendations to the Minister of Home Affairs

3.1:

As some policemen had

,r"i

batons in contravention to the Section 16 (a) and Section 16 (dxl), (dX2), (d)(3) and (d)(5) of the "Regulation on the Use of Weapons" vested by Section 17 (c) of the Police Act (5/2OOg), and because the report that is required to be submitted to the "Use of

Force Review Committee" in accordance to Section 16 (dX6) had not been submitted, the Commission has decided to recommend to the Minister of Home Affairs to take necessary administrative action against those responsible to submit the said report.

3.2:

As the police use helmets and hoods in operations such as the 8th February protest, identification of individual police becomes a challenge for investigations, the Commission has decided to recommend to the Home Minister to establish a mechanism at the Maldives Police Service to assist investigative bodies in identification of individual members of the police.

Statement of Dissentins Member. Commission President Shahindha lsmail.

1.

Based on the investigative evidence stated below: it is conclusive that, several members of the Police Force have violated laws and regulations, in their dispersal of the demonstration by the

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) whilst the demonstrators were at a standstill in the area in front of The Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) building, and that the situation at that time did not constitute for such dispersal: 1.1 lt is evident from the statements and video footage obtained for this investigation, that, some of the demonstrators when they came up to the security lines, that was in front of MMA, initially confronted the policemen by kicking their shields and throwing bottles of water at the lines and that the police reacted by pushing back the demonstration as far as the market area and that afteruvards the demonstrators moved forward and stopped

Page4of 7 3302580

:

,ij

3302582

S!

ZOTZS

-;i ,.ij-.

.2.78

ig:: 1r:- ,,Lr| 5.it.i7 92i

Police Integrity Commission, Shaheedh Abdulla Zuhair Hin'gun, Male'- 20125Tel 33O25BZFax: 3302580

in front of the MTCC building about 30 or so feet from the security lines, and that some of the demonstrators sat down on the ground. L.2

The area in front of the MMA is; by The Regulation of Assembly, a permitted area for demonstrations. Also, no evidence such as photographs, video footage or statements

except for the statements given by the police, who is the alleged party in this investigation, could be obtained for the investigation, which gave evidence of there being any breach of a law or any attempt to do so by the demonstrators. ti is evident from the statements, video footage, photographs and the hospital records obtained for this investigation, that there was infliction of serious injuries through brutal force while dispersing the demonstrators. Hence it is conclusive that some of the police, violated 7(al,11 of the Act 5/2OO8 (Police Act) and The Regulation On The Police Use Of

1.3

Force and The Regulation on The Use Of Batons.

it is conclusive: that the gathering was dispersed without forewarning by the police, on the order of Unit Commander, Sergeant Mohamed Naeem and that the order was given, despite the instruction to him by the Commander of the Specialist Operations, Inspector of Police Ahmed Shameem, not to disperse but to "hold" the demonstration; and that, Inspector Shameem had also instructed Unit Based on the statements obtained for this investigation,

2.

Commander Sergeant Mohamed Naeem to be advised by the ground Commander of MNDF on a decision on action, and that the MNDF Commander's advice was; to withhold dispersal for the

time being.

With reference to the Commission's Conclusion 2.3 and 2.4.lt is evident from statements, video footage and photographs obtained for this investigation that in dispersing the demonstration, the police gave chase to several people, entered "Niyaz Store", a shop in the vicinity, where President

3.

Mohamed Nasheed, MP Maria Ahmed Didi and MP Moosa Manik had taken refuge. In addition to the inhumane treatment by police inside the shop as stated in the Commission's Conclusion 2.3.3, it is also evident that policemen brutally dragged President Nasheed and the MPs into the street, and inflicted further injury on MP Maria Ahmed Didi, and MP Moosa Manik, and that Mp Moosa Manik, received death threats whilst being inflicted serious injury. These acts were not carried out in order to prevent or stop unlawful acts or for the safety of anyone and that they were brutal acts of crime intended for targeted persons.

4.

As

it is evident to this investigation that no adequate attempt was made to stop the

acts of

assault and inflicting injury against the public by police, whilst dispersing the gathering, and that

to reasons

stated below; it is conclusive that: from those of the high ranking police personnel, the Assistant Commissioner of Police Abdulla Fairoosh who was the then Acting Commissioner of Police, and Inspector of Police Ahmed Shameem, who was then in-charge of the police Specialist Operations Department, should be held accountable for negligence of duty: 4.L Since it is evident to the investigation that; even if the police were using communication sets, which is one of the means of giving commands in such situations, whilst attending to the gathering there was no command given to stop the acts, and that, although stated by Inspector Ahmed Shameem that he tried to speak to his men separately during the unrest, it is conclusive that: appropriate steps were not taken in order to stop the acts of inflicting injury being carried out by police in uniform. 4.2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police Abdulla Fairoosh, stated in answer during this investigation thaU on the 8th of February 20L2, when he saw the acts of inflicting injury

due

Page 5

of

7 3302580

:

9ij

3302582

*!

ZOTZS

-.:3 ,./j.-. j-3i irtt )i,

,./L:i g.it.7i 9si

Police Integrity Commission, Shaheedh Abdulla Zuhair Hin'gun, Male'- 20125Tel 3302582 Fax: 3302580

by some police at the gathering in front of MMA, on TV in the Police Headquarters, he instructed Inspector of Police Ahmed Shameem to "attend" to it; and that he believed that the situation was thus controlled, and that he did not have to take any action other than that.

4.3

lt is evident from the statement of Inspector of Police Ahmed Shameem, that there was no command issued to him by his seniors, or that he did not issue such a command, in order to stop the brutal acts of the police.

5.

For the reasons stated below; it is obvious thaU false information was forwarded by some policemen to this investigation of the Commission, and that it is a criminal offense.

5.1

5.2

5.3

6.

Although Assistant Commissioner of Police Abdulla Fairoosh, in his statement had said

that, soon after the meeting of M.D.P started at Dharubaaruge, the former Defense Minister Thal'hath lbrahim Kaleyfaan had assured the Deputy Commissioner of Police Hussain Waheed over the phone more than 3 times, that they were not going to come out of DHarubaaruge onto the streets on that day, Deputy Commissioner of Police Hussain Waheed, in his statement, refutes this information and said that the first time Thal'hath lbrahim Manik called him was after the demonstration had been dispersed, in order to complain about police actions. Although Inspector of Police Ahmed Shameem, in his statement had said that, at the time when the gathering was dispersed he was on the terrace of the Police Headquarters building; video footage obtained for the investigation show him in the scene of action 36 seconds after the police had started dispersing the gathering. Inspector of Police Ahmed Shameem also confirmed to the Commission that it is him. lt is commonsense that he would not have reached the scene of action in such a short duration of time. In Chapter 3 of Section 62of The Penal Code, it is stated that: "A person is said to give false evidence when: in any investigation or any matter carried out under the authority of Shari'ah or Law or by a person authorized to carry out such investigation or matter under the Shari'ah or Law to make an untrue declaration upon any such subject or to make a declaration hoping that it is or ought to be true or making a declaration not knowing or not confirming the true or untrue nature of that subject matter..."

In accordance with the powers and responsibility afforded to the investigations of

the

Commission in Section 35(b) of Act No. 5/2008(Police Act), to look into matters surrounding this case, it evident that no investigation was conducted of any police in regard to the acts of assault

and battery and acts of inflicting injury against public persons on the 8th of February 20L2, and, that it is a violation of the Constitution of the Maldives and Act No. 5/2008(Police Act). Hence,

due to reasons stated below it is conclusive that this case against the Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz and the Assistant Commissioner of Police Ali Rasheed (who is the foremost personnel of the Professional Standards Directorate of the Maldives Police Service) should be investigated and acted upon.

6.1

Page6of 7

In the event of

collecting information for this investigation, in the official communication with the Maldives Police Service, it is stated that; there was no 'reported case being investigated' of the incidents of assault and battery by police on the 8th of Februa ry 2012, and that it is more suitable for such cases to be investigated by an independent institution, and that the police were aware that the Police Integrity

6.2

Commission and the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives had launched investigations into the said incidents. Articfe zaapl of The Constitution of the Maldives and Section 2(d) and (e) of the 5/2008(Police Act) states that it is the duty of the police to look into and investigate criminal acts. Hence it is conclusive that it does not require a complaint to be filed for the Maldives Police Service to look into the incidents of police brutality on the 8th of February 2OL2.

6.3

Despite evidence of acts of inflicting injury and use of profanity by police on the 8th of February 2OL2, such as video footage and photographs, of these incidents being

available publicly, the Professional Standards Directorate of the Maldives Police Services, being the internal mechanism responsible to prompt investigation of police misconduct and other such matters, conducted no investigation and instead gave a promotion to a policeman identified, through video footage, in such an act on the 8th of February 2OL2.

02 October 2OL2

ffi

lgrLDt-fff4

Page7

of

7

99j

tt

-ii ,ii.-.

itjtt )a' t&tt ,rttt, 9r,

3302580 : nm5E2 20t25 )178 Folicc l@8rity C.onnission, Shabcdh Abdrtla Zrbeh Hin'gun, lllrb'-

nl25 Tct 33fr582 ILr: 330580