Yameen’s lawyers oppose admission of new evidence in retrial
He argued that the High Court’s decision to quash Yameen’s earlier conviction did not provide for additional evidence to be submitted.
The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments over whether new evidence can be submitted in the retrial of the V. Aarah lease case involving former President Abdulla Yameen.
Yameen’s lawyer, Hamza Latheef, told the court that allowing the prosecution to present new evidence at this stage would undermine the Criminal Procedure Code. He argued that the High Court’s decision to quash Yameen’s earlier conviction did not provide for additional evidence to be submitted.
The High Court had overturned an 11-year prison sentence handed to Yameen in connection with the Aarah lease transaction, citing errors in the assessment of evidence by the Criminal Court. It ordered a retrial, which is now ongoing at the lower court.
At Monday’s hearing, Prosecutor Hussain Sami maintained that excluding the new evidence would be unfair. He said Yameen should be given the opportunity to defend himself against the prosecution’s submissions, and that both sides should be allowed to debate the admissibility of the evidence during the Criminal Court proceedings.
Hamza countered that the prosecution was seeking to reopen matters not permitted by law at this stage. He said the High Court had not ordered a complete restart of the trial from the pre-trial stage and therefore neither side should be able to introduce new evidence.
Justice Shujun asked whether the High Court order to reopen the case allowed for fresh evidence. Both the prosecution and defence confirmed that no such instruction was included in the ruling.
The prosecution requested the court to permit the defence to respond to the contested evidence under Article 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and to allow the Criminal Court to reassess its admissibility.
The defence argued that the prosecution’s appeal against the High Court decision was inadmissible and inconsistent with previous rulings of the Supreme Court. It added that the High Court’s reasoning, which had not been challenged, did not require alteration.
The disputed evidence concerns whether funds deposited in Yameen’s account were part of a dollar exchange transaction.
The Criminal Court will deliver a judgment after reviewing the submissions of both parties.
