Azmiralda’s legal rights upheld in hearing, JSC says
The ACC is conducting a parallel investigation into the matter, though neither Azmiralda nor Mahaz have been summoned before the ACC yet.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has affirmed that Supreme Court Justice Dr. Azmiralda Zahir was given all the rights entitled to her under the law during the hearing regarding her alleged involvement in influencing the arrest of her husband, IGMH doctor Ismail Latheef.
Azmiralda appeared before the JSC yesterday, following which her lawyer, Ibrahim Shameel, issued a statement claiming the hearing was conducted unlawfully. However, the JSC refuted this claim today, asserting that the proceedings followed legal protocols as outlined in the Judicial Service Commission Act.
The JSC clarified that, according to the law, Azmiralda was required to answer questions from the commission members during the hearing. The commission cited specific legal provisions supporting their position:
-
Article 25(n) of the JSC Act states that a judge must respond to questions posed by the commission’s investigative committee regarding the case under review.
-
Article 25(b) allows a judge’s appointed lawyer to be consulted in answering these questions.
The JSC further stated that Azmiralda’s lawyer was given the opportunity to consult with her privately, ensuring compliance with legal standards.
Justice Mahaz Ali Zahir is also implicated in the case and was presented before the JSC on Sunday. He has denied the charges and responded to the commission’s questions. Similarly, Azmiralda has denied all accusations.
The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) is conducting a parallel investigation into the matter, though neither Azmiralda nor Mahaz have been summoned before the ACC yet.
Beyond the primary case, the JSC is also investigating an incident where Azmiralda and Mahaz were allegedly present when Husnu Soodh called High Court Assistant Registrar Hussain Mohamed Haneef to the Supreme Court and mistreated him.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s proceedings on a crucial constitutional amendment have stalled due to the suspension of three judges. The amendment concerns the expulsion of MPs from political parties and their subsequent loss of parliamentary seats. The suspension of the judges occurred just before a hearing on a request to delay the amendment’s implementation.
