Advertisement
Former President Abdulla Yameen. (Atoll Times File Photo)

Ignoring anti-Yameen evidence major injustice, PG tells Supreme Court

The appeal hearing at the Supreme Court focused on the final arguments from both parties.

20 January 2025

Prosecutor General's Office (PGO) on Monday argued that a High Court direction to disregard evidence against former President Abdulla Yameen's alleged corruption case concerning the lease of V. Aarah island was a significant injustice, as the new evidence was submitted to demonstrate that defence witnesses provided false testimony during the trial.

PGO appealed to the Supreme Court following a High Court decision to exclude new evidence submitted in the retrial of former President Yameen's alleged corruption case concerning the lease of V. Aarah island.

The prosecution argued that the High Court’s direction to disregard the evidence was a significant injustice, as the new evidence was submitted to demonstrate that defence witnesses provided false testimony during the trial.

The appeal hearing at the Supreme Court focused on the final arguments from both parties.

Prosecution counsel Ahmed Shafeeu contended that excluding the evidence undermines the pursuit of justice. He questioned whether the High Court’s decision aligned with fairness, stating, “How exactly will it ensure justice when new evidence emerges, and the evidence is kept aside and not taken into consideration at all?”

Shafeeu argued that the High Court’s decision contradicted a precedent established by the Supreme Court, which allows procedural defects to be addressed and provides opportunities for both parties to rectify issues. He emphasised that the rule permits the submission of new evidence and its subsequent examination by both sides.

Shafeeu noted that the High Court’s primary concern appeared to be the process of submitting the evidence, asserting that procedural errors do not justify ignoring the evidence entirely. He highlighted that the evidence was submitted promptly upon its discovery by the prosecution.

The prosecution requested the court to:

  • 1-

    Allow the defence to submit any responses to the evidence under Article 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

  • 2-

    Permit both parties to argue the evidence in court.

  • 3-

    Direct the lower court to reconsider the admissibility of the evidence.

Yameen’s defence counsel, Hamza Latheef, maintained that the Criminal Procedure Act permits the introduction of evidence only when necessary, such as forensic evidence, and not as a means to counter a witness's testimony. He argued that the prosecution had overstepped its boundaries by attempting to introduce evidence in response to statements made by defence witnesses.

Latheef asserted that the Supreme Court’s rule was not intended to grant repeated opportunities to correct procedural missteps or to challenge defence testimony. He further argued that the prosecution’s appeal failed to address the core reasons for the High Court’s decision, rendering it inadmissible.

The Supreme Court’s three-judge bench, comprising Aisha Shujoon Mohamed (Chair), Dr Mohamed Ibrahim, and Dr Azmiralda Zahir, heard the final statements from both sides.

The prosecution’s new evidence included attendance records from the workplace of Ahmed Nareesh, deputy mayor of Male, and minutes from Economic Youth Council meetings held by the then-cabinet. The prosecution alleges that Nareesh provided false testimony regarding cash transactions involving former MP Yousuf Naeem.

The court will deliver its verdict after reviewing the submissions from both parties.

Comments

profile-image-placeholder