Supreme Court upholds High Court decision in STELCO RTI case
On 11 September 2024, ICOM ruled that the objection raised by STELCO did not prevent the case from continuing.
Top Stories
-
Opposition calls journalist sentences attack on press freedom
-
Kulhudhuffushi parade entries barred from using names and photos
-
Maldives legalises ADHD medication methylphenidate
-
Woman sentenced to 6 years for blackmail, pornographic material
-
Adhadhu journalists sentenced to prison over breach of order
The Supreme Court of the Maldives on Thursday upheld a decision by the High Court to proceed with a case involving State Electric Company Limited (STELCO) and the disclosure of employee names and salary information.
The case relates to a request submitted to STELCO on 3 July 2024 under the name Mohamed Sharuhan. After STELCO did not respond to the request, a complaint was filed with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICOM), which accepted the matter for review.
During an ICOM hearing held on 9 September 2024, STELCO argued that the requester could not be verified and claimed there was no legal basis to proceed with a case filed under an identity that could not be confirmed.
On 11 September 2024, ICOM ruled that the objection raised by STELCO did not prevent the case from continuing.
STELCO later appealed the decision at the High Court. ICOM argued that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, stating that the decision being challenged related only to procedure and that the appeal constituted misuse of legal process.
The High Court, however, ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case.
Thursday’s hearing at the Supreme Court was held to deliver judgment on ICOM’s appeal against the High Court ruling. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the High Court’s decision to proceed with the matter.
The bench hearing the case consisted of Justices Hussain Shaheed, Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim and Abdulla Hameed.
The Supreme Court also stated that questions relating to whether procedural decisions by ICOM can be appealed would be addressed after the High Court reaches a final decision on the broader case.
As a result, the Supreme Court declined to make findings on those issues at this stage and allowed High Court proceedings to continue.