Supreme Court rules intelligence officers’ identities can be withheld in terrorism case
The Criminal Court had refused to issue the order, and the High Court later upheld that decision. The state then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Top Stories
The Supreme Court has ruled that police intelligence officers who prepare intelligence reports may have their identities withheld when giving evidence, without the state having to establish a separate risk specific to each officer.
The ruling was issued last week in an appeal arising from a terrorism case in which the state sought a witness protection order allowing intelligence officers to testify confidentially.
The Criminal Court had refused to issue the order, and the High Court later upheld that decision. The state then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The case concerns three intelligence reports submitted by the prosecution against three people charged in connection with an alleged plan to carry out a terrorist attack in Malé and a nearby island.
The reports comprise an intelligence assessment, an analysis of call detail records and an analysis of electronic devices.
In a unanimous ruling, the three-judge Supreme Court bench said the Criminal Procedure Act requires courts considering confidential testimony to take into account risks to the public interest arising from the nature of the case.
The court said this does not mean the state must always demonstrate a separate and specific threat against each witness.
The judges found that intelligence officers may, by the nature of their work, have a legitimate need for protection.
Where the circumstances of a case provide grounds to establish that intelligence officers giving evidence face a collective or common risk, the state does not need to set out separate reasons for protecting each officer, the ruling said.
The Supreme Court also said courts must balance the fundamental rights of defendants against the public interest cited by the state when deciding such applications.
It found that the lower courts had failed to carry out that balancing exercise adequately.
The case was heard by Justices Ali Rasheed Hussain, Dr Mohamed Ibrahim and Hussain Shaheed, who presided over the bench.
