PG seeks extension on case resubmission over Jihad's trip
Criminal Court dismissed these charges during a pre-trial motion, ruling that the charges were defective and, therefore, could not be heard in court.
Prosecutor General's Office (PGO) has asked the High Court to extend the deadline for appealing against the Criminal Court's decision to dismiss the corruption charges against former Vice President Abdulla Jihad.
Jihad could not be summoned to appear in the appeal filed in the High Court, so the case was referred back to PGO. The expiration date is on Thursday.
When asked about the expiry of the deadline, PG spokesperson Ahmed Shafeeu said police had said that Jihad was not in Maldives at the moment. There is no way to serve the summons at this time and PGO has requested an extension to arrange it when he arrives in Maldives, he added.
High Court on September 26 remanded the appeal filed by the prosecution against the dismissal of charges against former Jihad in the K. Fushidhiggaru island lease case, sending it back to the PGO for further action.
This decision follows the Criminal Court's earlier dismissal of the case on July 25, when it ruled that the prosecution could not proceed. In response, the prosecution appealed the dismissal to the High Court on August 29, with a hearing held on September 11.
However, the High Court returned the case to the PG's office after determining that proper procedures had not been followed regarding the summons of Jihad. A three-judge bench unanimously ruled that Jihad had not been properly served with the order to appear in court, citing issues with delivering the summons to his correct address.
Jihad faces allegations relating to the development of K. Fushidhiggaru as a resort. He was accused of forming a joint venture company in which the state held only a 25% stake, contrary to a cabinet decision mandating a 50% stake for the government. The joint venture agreement in question involved Prime Capital Maldives Limited.
The charges against Jihad include acting in a manner that was not in the best interest of the state or its people.
However, the Criminal Court dismissed these charges during a pre-trial motion, ruling that the charges were defective and, therefore, could not be heard in court.
