State seeks to exclude Yameen’s defence witnesses in Aarah case

The state has asked the Criminal Court to exclude defence witnesses presented by former President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom to support his claim that USD 1 million deposited into his account was from a US dollar exchange transaction rather than a bribe linked to the lease of V. Aarah.

The request was made during pre-trial submissions on Tuesday in the case against Yameen and former MP Yoosuf Naeem.

The prosecution alleges that the USD 1 million deposited into Yameen’s account was a bribe paid in return for arranging the lease of V. Aarah to 2G Private Limited. Yameen and Naeem dispute the allegation and maintain that the payment arose from a dollar exchange transaction.

According to their account, Yameen provided Naeem with the equivalent amount in Maldivian rufiyaa in cash in return for the dollars deposited into Yameen’s account.

Yameen has proposed witnesses who the defence says can establish that the rufiyaa was delivered to Naeem.

The state asked the court on Tuesday not to admit four defence witnesses and a documentary exhibit submitted in support of that claim.

The witnesses are former Malé Deputy Mayor and current adviser to the Youth Minister Ahmed Nareesh, Abdulla Rasheed, Villimalé MP Mohamed Ismail and Hulhudhoo MP Mohamed Shahid. The documentary evidence is a written record relating to the alleged dollar exchange transaction.

Prosecutor General’s Office lawyer Ahmed Shafeeu argued that the evidence should not be admitted because it was not disclosed during the investigation.

Shafeeu said Yameen had exercised his right to remain silent during the investigation. Referring to Article 47 of the Criminal Procedure Act, he argued that information provided by an accused person must be disclosed during the investigation if it cannot be used as evidence against that person.

According to Shafeeu, because Yameen remained silent during the investigation, the defence must either provide reasons why the information can now be admitted or establish grounds for doing so.

Yameen and his lawyers responded to the prosecution’s argument during the hearing.

Yameen said he had remained silent during the investigation because the document shown to him by police was a bank document which he did not consider authentic. He said he had therefore decided that he would address the document during the trial.

The court is currently hearing arguments on pre-trial submissions filed by Yameen’s defence.

The USD 1 million at the centre of the case is alleged by the state to have been paid to Yameen as a bribe in return for arranging the lease of V. Aarah to 2G Private Limited.

During the earlier trial, Yameen presented evidence seeking to establish that the payment was instead part of a dollar exchange transaction.

Among those witnesses was Ahmed Nareesh, who testified that he had gone to deliver Maldivian rufiyaa cash to Naeem as payment for the dollars that Yameen was to receive.

The Criminal Court, in its earlier judgment, rejected Nareesh’s account. That judgment was subsequently overturned by the High Court.

During the previous proceedings, the state sought to introduce new evidence to challenge testimony from Yameen’s defence witnesses. The High Court later ruled that the new evidence could not be admitted, a decision subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.

The evidence excluded from the retrial included attendance records from the Maldives National Defence Force relating to Nareesh’s previous employment and minutes of meetings of the Economic Youth Council, a Cabinet committee at the time.