Appeal filed over Shiyam's acquittal in abuse of power charges
Shiyam was accused of arranging for his father to live in the (MNDF) Coast Guard’s MRCC VIP building in Villimale from 2017 onwards.
Top Stories
-
EPA warns against unauthorised sand extraction with machinery
-
CSC warns of possible layoffs after housing ministry restructure
-
President proposes part-time councillor system to reduce costs
-
Govt sets target to resolve power, waste management by Ramadan
-
Procurement on bulk boulders for all islands underway: President
Prosecutor General's Office (PGO) has appealed against the Criminal Court ruling that former Chief of Defence Force Major General Ahmed Shiyam has not been convicted of abuse of official position.
Shiyam has faced accusations of abuse of official position over his alleged use of military facilities for personal purposes. Specifically, Shiyam was accused of arranging for his father to live in the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) Coast Guard’s MRCC (Marine Rescue Coordination Centre) VIP building in Villimale from 2017 onwards. This arrangement, according to the prosecution, was improper and driven by Shiyam's influence, raising concerns about possible misuse of authority.
In the original ruling, the Criminal Court acquitted Shiyam of all charges on October 1.
The prosecution, dissatisfied with the verdict, appealed the case to the High Court in December, seeking a re-evaluation of the evidence presented. As of now, the High Court has yet to decide whether it will accept the appeal for further review.
The Criminal Court’s acquittal hinged on several key factors. Judge Aiminath Azlifa, in her verdict, stated that the prosecution failed to substantiate claims that Shiyam had used his official position to improperly house his father in the MRCC VIP guesthouse. The Judge provided several key reasons for her decision:
-
1-
Lack of Specific Rules: There was no clear written regulation prohibiting the accommodation of individuals in the army’s VIP guesthouse.
-
2-
Military Protocol: The practice of using the VIP guesthouse had been established for accommodating authorised personnel from the Bureau of Chief Defence. It also allowed for temporary stays by service members' families and guests invited by the army.
-
3-
No Evidence of Misuse: The court found no definitive evidence to suggest that Shiyam’s father was staying at the facility for an unusually extended period. The duration of his stay could not be conclusively shown to be in violation of any protocol.
-
4-
Assistance Without Orders: The court noted that an army officer had voluntarily provided medical assistance to Shiyam’s father, without receiving any official orders to do so. The officer explained that the assistance was given during off-duty hours due to the officer’s proximity to the VIP house.
-
5-
No Financial Misconduct: The court found no evidence that the Ministry of Defence had been billed for catering or other services rendered to Shiyam's father. Additionally, testimony from soldiers confirmed that any costs incurred for food and transportation had been paid directly by Shiyam’s father.
The Criminal Court also pointed out that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) had previously investigated the matter and determined that there was no evidence of corruption. Despite this, the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) reopened the case in 2020, based on new concerns that warranted further legal scrutiny.
The prosecution contended that between July 18, 2017, and December 11, 2018, Shiyam’s father had lived in the MRCC VIP guesthouse at the behest of Shiyam. They argued that there were no laws or regulations allowing a civilian, particularly a family member, to reside on an army base, and that Shiyam had misused his position to facilitate this.
Further, the prosecution highlighted that the MRCC VIP house, although not explicitly regulated, is still a military facility subject to the Army Act. The Army Act stipulates that army facilities should not be used for private purposes, and that an officer like Shiyam should not have used his authority to provide such accommodation without clear justification or legal backing.
Moreover, the prosecution suggested that Shiyam’s father had received benefits—such as accommodation and the services of a former MNDF employee—that he should not have been entitled to, as these resources were meant exclusively for military personnel in the course of their duties.
The defence argued that there was no malicious intent or improper conduct involved in placing Shiyam’s father in the MRCC building. They stressed that accommodating family members in military facilities, especially in emergencies, was a common practice within the armed forces. The defence further noted that the army regularly provides such accommodations for soldiers' families, particularly for those in higher ranks, during times of need.
The defence also emphasised that Shiyam’s father was not provided special privileges beyond the normal allowances extended to military families, and that no financial benefits or services were improperly charged to the government.
