Gayoom and former ministers seeking legal advice over AG’s demands

Naeem claimed that former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and many of his ministers, as well as several members of the current government, had refused to provide a statement of their assets as required by Article 138 of the new Constitution.

The article requires every member of the Cabinet to “annually submit to the Auditor General a statement of all property and monies owned by him, business interests and all assets and liabilities.”

DRP member and spokesman for the former president, Mohamed ‘Mundhu’ Hussain Shareef, said the Auditor General’s request had “no legal weight under the new constitution”, and that Gayoom would be issuing a formal statement on the matter.

The Auditor General needs to update himself on the facts. He has obviously been discussing this from a comfy chair in Nasheed’s living room,” Mundhu said. “With his [alleged by the ACC] embezzelment of state funds, I think he has realised he is on borrowed time. He is clearly not fit to be in a position of responsibility and should go back to Singapore.”

Mundhu said the issue had “hijacked” parliament, and that the growing antagonism was becoming a political liability for President Mohamed Nasheed.

“Nasheed has good PR outside the country, but this time the audience is in town. He is not going to be able to fool a foreign audience – half the donor community is in town.”

“He can put up police barriers and turn Male’ into a police state, but will not get support from the people in return,” Mundhu said.

Independent MP and former Information Minister Mohamed Nasheed, also on the Auditor General’s list, said he believed there were numerous legal faults with the AG’s demands as new provisions in the Constitution did not apply to the interim ministers.

“There have been no rules or regulations regarding how assets should be declared, or cut off dates,” Nasheed said. “Article 138 of the constitution simply says that certain information relating to cabinet members must be disclosed, [a provision] that was formed under the new Constitution ratified on 7 August 2008.”

“There was no cut-off line mentioned. The former ministers were in government for three months and three days after the new constitution came into effect, and [the AG] requested submission of financial declaration in August 2009, nine months after we left office.”

Nasheed also said he had “no reason to believe” the Auditor General could demand such details from former ministers, as they had not been appointed or elected after the new consitution came into effect.

“He refers to section 20 of the audit law, which states he cannot be obstruct in the discharge of his function, but filing our financial declarations is not his function under the Constitution,” Nasheed said. “There is nothing saying he can demand compliance.”

The former ministers had also been sent forms by the AG “asking for more information required by Article 138,” Nasheed noted.

“I think he is a little unstable, and is firing any cannon at his disposal. He has crossed the line and become a politician himself.”

Nasheed said he was waiting for a decision by the Prosecutor General, but said that even if the PG decided to prosecute, he doubted the former ministers would be forthcoming with their cooperation: “No I don’t think they would. I certainly wouldn’t,” he said.

“I have been practicing as a lawyer for 15 years and I have never seen any demand so ridiculous.”