Former army chief acquitted of undue influence charges
Major General Ahmed Shiyam faced allegations concerning his father's accommodation at the Coast Guard's MRCC building in Vilimale’.
Criminal Court on Tuesday delivered a ruling regarding former Chief of Defense Force Major General Ahmed Shiyam, concluding that the charges of abuse of official position were not substantiated.
Shiyam faced allegations concerning his father's accommodation at the Coast Guard's MRCC building in Vilimale’.
The prosecution argued that Shiyam had improperly facilitated his father's stay, thereby abusing his official position to grant benefits not entitled to him.
The specific charges included the assertion that Shiyam had influenced the arrangement of his father’s residence in the military facility.
Throughout the proceedings, Shiyam denied the charges, maintaining that his father’s presence at the MRCC was justified.
In Tuesday's ruling, Judge Aiminath Azlifa outlined several key reasons for dismissing the charges against Shiyam:
-
The judge noted the absence of any written regulations governing the accommodation of individuals in the army VIP guesthouse. The existing protocol allows for the accommodation of persons authorized by the Chief Defense Bureau, which did not explicitly preclude Shiyam's father's situation.
-
Evidence presented indicated that family members of military personnel can be accommodated under certain circumstances. The court recognized that such practices exist for emergency situations and other valid reasons, which were argued to apply in this case.
-
The court considered the testimony of an army officer who provided medical assistance to Shiyam’s father without prior orders, emphasizing that this was done informally and out of goodwill due to proximity, rather than as a directive from the chain of command.
-
It was established that Shiyam paid for his father's food and transportation, countering claims of misappropriated military resources. Catering services did not bill the Ministry of Defense, further supporting the defense's position.
Notably, the case had previously been assessed by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), which concluded that no corruption was present.
However, in 2020, the Prosecutor General's Office (PGO) reopened the case after identifying new concerns, ultimately leading to today’s ruling.
