court

The Parliament of the Maldives has impeached two judges of the country’s Supreme Court, deepening a political crisis triggered by President Mohamed Muizzu’s push to amend the constitution and strip legislators of their seats if they switch political parties.

The Parliament, where the governing People’s National Congress holds a supermajority, voted on Wednesday to remove Justices Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir on allegations of abuse of power.

The vote, which passed 68 – 11, took place as dozens of opposition supporters rallied outside the Parliament House, calling for Muizzu’s resignation and an end to what they called the intimidation of judges.

The move comes more than two months after the judicial watchdog, dominated by Muizzu’s allies, suspended the two judges and their colleague, Justice Husnu al-Suood. At the time, the seven-member Supreme Court bench had been holding hearings into a petition challenging the anti-defection measures.

Suood later resigned from the top court, accusing Muizzu and Attorney General Ahmed Usham of intimidating all the judges of the Supreme Court to secure a judgement in their favour.

The president and his lawyer deny the charges.

“I do not interfere with the judiciary,” Muizzu told reporters during a 14-hour news conference on May 3. “I have never done so. I do not control the [the judicial watchdog].”

The crisis has paralysed the Maldives’s Supreme Court, halting hearings in all ongoing cases, including on the constitutional amendments. It has also raised fears of renewed instability in the Indian Ocean honeymoon destination, which held its first multiparty elections in 2008, but has been roiled by political turmoil since, including a coup d’etat, disputed elections, and the killings and jailing of dissidents.

‘Attack on judiciary’

Azmiralda and Mahaz denounced their impeachment on Wednesday.

“This is an attack on the Maldivian judiciary. It is no ordinary matter to bring the Maldives Supreme Court to a halt,” Azmiralda said in a statement. “My hope is that one day, when the rule of law is established in this country … all of the various officials who took part in destroying the Supreme Court are held accountable.”

The case against the two judges stems from the arrest of Azmiralda’s husband, Ismail Latheef, during a police raid on a spa where he was receiving a massage in the Maldivian capital, Male, on December 4 of last year.

The incident happened two weeks after Muizzu ratified the anti-defection measures.

The controversial amendments stipulate that legislators elected on a political party ticket would lose their seat if they switch parties, or if they resign or are expelled from their party. The provisions effectively allow Muizzu to maintain his supermajority in Parliament, where his party controls 79 of the chamber’s 93 seats.

The president has argued they are necessary to “improve political stability”, but opponents say they would destroy the country’s system of checks and balances.

At the time of Latheef’s arrest, a former member of parliament had filed a petition at the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the amendments, but the bench had yet to decide to take up the case.

Latheef was held overnight for more than 12 hours, on charges of soliciting a prostitute, but was released by a judge at the Criminal Court. In the ruling, the judge noted that the masseuse treating Latheef was fully clothed at the time of the raid, and that the room they were in was unlocked.

The prosecutor’s office later shelved the case against Latheef, citing a lack of evidence.

But after the Supreme Court began reviewing the constitutional amendments in February, the watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) took up a separate case against Azmiralda and Mahaz, claiming the two judges had unlawfully lobbied lower court judges to secure Latheef’s release.

The JSC recommended that the Parliament impeach them last month.

‘No ulterior motives’

The judges have denied the charges, with lawyers for Azmiralda saying that the case was “manufactured by top government officials to suspend” them “in order to influence the outcome of the constitutional case before the Supreme Court”.

Usham, the Attorney General, has told Al Jazeera that the government “categorically denies these allegations”.

“There is absolutely no truth to the claim that the executive branch had any hand in the JSC’s [the judicial watchdog’s] decision,” he wrote in an email. “The suspension was pursuant to law and… any suggestion of ulterior motives is firmly rejected by the Government.”

The case, however, has drawn criticism from the United Nations and rights groups.

Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN’s special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, expressed grave concern last month over the action against the three judges, saying they appear to be aimed at undermining the Supreme Court’s judicial review of the anti-defection measures.

“The disciplinary proceedings brought against three of the Supreme Court’s Justices appear to violate the principle that judges can only be dismissed on serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence and in accordance with fair procedures guaranteeing objectivity and impartiality as provided for by the Constitution or the law,” she wrote. “The pressure of suspensions, disciplinary proceedings and investigations may amount to an interference in the independence of this institution.”

May 14 (UPI) — The European Court of Justice Wednesday ruled there was no plausible reason to block The New York Times from getting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s texts with a Pfizer executive.

The commission blocked the texts from being released to the newspaper, claiming it did not hold them.

“The Commission decision refusing a journalist of The New York Times access to the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer is annulled,” the court ruling said.

The court said Matina Stevi, a journalist with The New York Times, requested access to all text messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla between Jan. 1, 2021, and May 11, 2022.

The texts were secret messages before a multi-billion-dollar vaccine deal was reached between the European Union and Pfizer.

The commission rejected the request for the texts on the grounds that the commission did not hold the requested documents.

But the court ruling said Stevi and The New York Times “succeeded in rebutting the presumption of non-existence and of non-possession of the requested documents.”

The court added that the commission “has not given a plausible explanation to justify the non-possession of the requested documents.”

The court found the commission should have provided a more detailed explanation on why the documents were withheld.

The commission has the right to appeal the decision.

“The commission will now closely study the General Court’s decision and decide on next steps. To this effect, the Commission will adopt a new decision providing a more detailed explanation,” it said in a statement.

“Transparency has always been of paramount importance for the commission and President von der Leyen. We will continue to strictly abide by the solid legal framework in place to enforce our obligations.”

HEC Paris Business School law professor Alberto Alemanno said the court decision would enhance accountability for EU leaders.

“This judgment provides a fresh reminder that the EU is governed by the rule of law, with its leaders subject to the constant scrutiny of free media and of an independent court,” Alemanno said.

Dutch MEP Raquel Garcia Hermida-van der Walle called the court decision a “slam dunk for transparency.”

“People just want and are allowed to know how decisions are made, it is essential in a democracy. Even if it was done over a text message,” she said.

PARIS — French movie star Gérard Depardieu ’s fall from grace is now complete.

Depardieu further moved down from the pinnacle of French cinema Tuesday as he was found guilty of sexually assaulting two women on the set of a movie in which he starred in 2021 and given an 18-month suspended prison sentence. He was also fined a total of 29,040 euros (around $32,350), and the court requested that he be registered in the national sex offender database.

The actor, 76, has been convicted of having groped a 54-year-old set dresser and a 34-year-old assistant during the filming of “Les Volets Verts” (“The Green Shutters”). The case was widely seen as a key post-#MeToo test of how French society and its film industry address allegations of sexual misconduct involving prominent figures.

Depardieu, who has denied the accusations, didn’t attend the hearing in Paris. Depardieu’s lawyer, Jérémie Assous, said that his client would appeal the decision.

“It is the victory of two women, but it is the victory of all the women beyond this trial,” said Carine Durrieu Diebolt, the set dresser’s lawyer. “Today we hope to see the end of impunity for an artist in the world of cinema. I think that with this decision we can no longer say that he is not a sexual abuser. And today, as the Cannes Film Festival opens, I’d like the film world to spare a thought for Gérard Depardieu’s victims.”

Accused by more than 20 women

Depardieu’s long and storied career — he told the court that he’s made more than 250 films — has turned him into a French movie giant. He was Oscar-nominated in 1991 for his performance as the swordsman and poet Cyrano de Bergerac.

In recent years, the actor has been accused publicly or in formal complaints of misconduct by more than 20 women, but so far only the sexual assault case has proceeded to court. Some other cases were dropped because of a lack of evidence or the statute of limitations.

During the four-day trial in March, Depardieu rejected the accusations, saying he’s “not like that.” He acknowledged that he had used vulgar and sexualized language on the film set and that he grabbed the set dresser’s hips during an argument, but denied that his behavior was sexual.

The court, composed of a panel of three judges, concluded that Depardieu’s explanations in court were “unpersuasive” and “not credible” and stressed both accusers’ “constant, reiterated and substantiated declarations.”

The court also said that both plaintiffs have been faced with an “aggressive” defense strategy “based on comments meant to offend them.” The judges therefore considered that Depardieu’s lawyer comments in court aggravated the harm to the accusers and justified higher fines.

The two accusers testified in court

The set dresser described the alleged assault, saying the actor pincered her between his legs as she squeezed past him in a narrow corridor.

She said he grabbed her hips then started “palpating” her behind and “in front, around.” She ran her hands near her buttocks, hips and pubic area to show what she allegedly experienced. She said he then grabbed her chest.

The woman also testified that Depardieu used an obscene expression to ask her to touch his penis and suggested he wanted to rape her. She told the court that the actor’s calm and cooperative attitude during the trial bore no resemblance to his behavior at work.

The other plaintiff, an assistant, said that Depardieu groped her buttocks and her breasts during three separate incidents on the film set.

The Associated Press doesn’t identify by name people who say they were sexually assaulted unless they consent to be named. Neither women has done so in this case.

“I’m very moved,” one of the plaintiffs, the set dresser, told reporters after the verdict. “I’m very very much satisfied with the decision, that’s a victory for me, really, and a big progress, a step forward. I feel justice was made.”

Some expressed support for Depardieu

Some figures in the French cinema world have expressed their support for Depardieu. Actors Vincent Perez and Fanny Ardant were among those who took seats on his side of the courtroom.

French media reported last week that Depardieu was shooting a film directed by Ardant in the Azores archipelago, in Portugal.

The actor may have to face other legal proceedings soon.

In 2018, actor Charlotte Arnould accused him of raping her at his home. That case is still active, and in August 2024 prosecutors requested that it go to trial.

For more than a half-century, Depardieu stood as a towering figure in French cinema, a titan known for his commanding physical presence, instinct, sensibility and remarkable versatility.

A bon vivant who overcame a speech impediment and a turbulent youth, Depardieu rose to prominence in the 1970s and became one of France’s most prolific and acclaimed actors, portraying a vast array of characters, from volatile outsiders to deeply introspective figures.

In recent years, his behavior toward women has come under renewed scrutiny, including after a documentary showed him repeatedly making obscene remarks and gestures during a 2018 trip to North Korea.

Corbet writes for the Associated Press. Samuel Petrequin contributed to this report.