JSC finds no evidence of influence from statements, Azmiralda says

Supreme Court Justice Azmiralda Zahir stated that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) inquiry report contains no evidence to support allegations that she influenced the arrest of her husband, Ismail Latheef, a doctor at Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH).

Azmiralda appeared before the JSC on Tuesday, and the initial investigation report was released on Thursday. Her lawyer, Ibrahim Shameel, issued a statement on Tuesday addressing the findings of the report.

According to the statement, the investigation report includes transcripts of statements given by three Criminal Court judges to the JSC. However, the lawyer stated that these statements do not indicate that Azmiralda influenced an arrest warrant.

“We believe there is no basis for an allegation that Justice Azmiralda Zahir influenced the judges of the Criminal Court. If such an allegation exists, it is an illusion of some state agencies,” the lawyer said.

The statement further claimed that the JSC report includes statements that were not part of one judge’s official testimony. The lawyer alleged that the commission is conducting the investigation unfairly and in violation of legal procedures.

The names of the three judges who provided statements were not mentioned in the lawyer’s statement. However, it is known that the following judges were presented before the JSC and the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC):

Justice Mahaz Ali Zahir is also under investigation in the same case.

The judges have seven days to respond to the initial investigation report, with the deadline set for Thursday. The final report will be prepared afterward, followed by another hearing.

Azmiralda and Mahaz were suspended. Former judge Husnu Suood was also suspended on 26 August after the ACC informed the JSC of an ongoing investigation. Mubarak resigned on 4 September.

The decision to hear cases involving these judges, including those filed under the previous JSC, was suspended as the court was about to proceed with a hearing on an interim order regarding new circumstances leading to the loss of parliamentary seats.

This case relates to a constitutional amendment that allows a parliamentary seat to be lost if an MP is expelled from their party. The judges were suspended after the court decided to continue the case, which has now been stalled following the suspensions.

Four Supreme Court judges remain in office without suspension.

According to the Courts Act, a constitutional case in the Supreme Court must be heard by a bench of at least five judges.