MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, the running mate of Dr. Waheed, is not known for his public discussions.
A man of a few words, DRP leader and the 2008 running mate of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom speaks little in public, aside of the podium speeches during election times. These speeches too, often appear to come out reluctantly from his mouth.
Thasmeen does not talk much. At least, not in public. And never, to me. Not until that day last October when @Thasmeen responded to a tweet of mine where I repeated my long held opinion that Maldives lost rule of law when the State failed to fulfill constitutional requirements under Article 285 to screen all sitting judges and reappoint the first ever independent judiciary in the country.
You can imagine my surprise not only in @Thasmeen commenting, but in the fact that the DRP leader was speaking on a subject that has been hushed up by the collective efforts of the opposition, the parties which has since become Dr. Waheed’s “unity government”, since 2010.
What @Thasmeen had to say, is no less surprising, and quite telling. It explains not only his opinion on Article 285 and independence of judges, but also his understanding of democracy and approach to democratic principles and values.
Today, as we head towards elections on September 7, 2013, all the more clearer that the battle is upon the Constitution, and specifically on control of the Courts, it is prudent to recall the conversation with @Thasneem, and his views on Article 285, independence of judges, judicial reform and more broadly, his views on democracy.
It seems what @Thasneem has, is an overarching urge to “win” at all costs, by any means.
The conversation of course forked as #twitter discussions often do. Here, in pictures, is Part I of the conversation between @Thasmeen and @Velezinee in October 2012, with comments of other tweeps included too.
And, I still wait for MP @Thasmeen to return with the proof he promised.
Proof that I - @Velezinee - had acted against Article 285 and participated in the treason I accuse the Judicial Service Commission of and request the Parliament to hold an inquiry into.
I hope @Thasmeen do return with the proof. Either way, what @Thasmeen seems to agree with me here is that there was a breach on Constitution Article 285.
My participation in the crime is an entirely different issue and that can be addressed only after the redress of Article 285 and the setting up of constitutional Courts.