Hearings conclude in retrial over blogger Yameen's murder

The Criminal Court on Wednesday concluded hearings in the retrial of four men in connection with the murder of blogger Yameen Rasheed.

Six people were originally charged in the case, but only two — Ismail Haisham Rasheed and Ahmed Zihan Ismail — were convicted of murdering Yameen. The other four defendants were acquitted.

In December last year, the High Court overturned the convictions of Haisham and Zihan and ordered a retrial. It also ordered the cases against Mohamed Dhifran and Ismail Rasheed, who had previously been acquitted, to be reconsidered.

The four defendants whose cases were sent back for reconsideration are Ismail Haisham Rasheed, Ahmed Zihan Ismail, Mohamed Dhifran and Ismail Rasheed.

The High Court ordered the lower court to verify the authenticity of a letter purportedly sent by a protected prosecution witness seeking to withdraw their testimony. The letter stated that the testimony had been given under coercion.

The Criminal Court conducted the retrial to address three issues identified for determination, giving both the prosecution and defence an opportunity to make submissions.

At Wednesday’s hearing, both sides made their final submissions on those issues.

Judge Ibrahim Ihsan, who presides over the bench hearing the case, said at the conclusion of the hearing that all proceedings had now been completed and the next stage would be the verdict. He did not announce a date for the verdict hearing.

Wednesday’s hearing focused on the cases against Dhifran and Ismail Rasheed, both of whom face charges of aiding an intentional killing.

The prosecution argued that testimony from protected witnesses provided grounds to convict both defendants.

According to the prosecution, protected-witness testimony indicated that Dhifran and Ismail Rasheed had actively participated in meetings held to plan Yameen’s murder and had been involved in monitoring his movements.

The state argued that Ismail Rasheed was waiting outside Yameen’s residence between about 2:40am and 3am on the night of the killing as part of a task assigned to him.

The prosecution further argued that, after Yameen was attacked, one of the two assailants who left the building was taken away from the area on Ismail Rasheed’s motorcycle. The state said this amounted to assisting one of the alleged attackers to leave the scene.

The prosecution also alleged that Dhifran had monitored Yameen on several occasions before the killing and had followed him from near his office on the night he was killed. It said CCTV footage and witness testimony supported that allegation.

According to the state, the information Dhifran allegedly provided after monitoring Yameen, together with the role he allegedly performed, directly facilitated the killing.

State prosecutor Ahmed Naushad argued that aiding a killing did not necessarily require a person to physically participate in the attack. He said facilitating the offence, providing protection to those carrying it out or acting as a lookout could also constitute assistance.

The prosecution argued that without Ismail Rasheed allegedly waiting outside on a motorcycle and without Dhifran allegedly monitoring Yameen near his office, the assailants waiting at Yameen’s residence would have had greater difficulty determining when he would arrive and carrying out the attack.

The defence, however, challenged the admissibility and reliability of the protected witnesses’ testimony.

Lawyers for Dhifran and Ismail Rasheed argued that the defence had not been shown statements given by protected witnesses and had not been provided a fair opportunity to question them during the earlier proceedings. They also raised questions about parts of the witnesses’ testimony.

Defence lawyer Hamza Latheef argued that the testimony of one protected witness had been obtained without giving the defence a fair opportunity for cross-examination.

“The testimony of protected witness number one was taken in a manner that completely denied the defence an opportunity to question the witness fairly,” Latheef said.

He also argued that the defence had never seen any statement the witness may have given during the investigation and questioned whether the testimony contained sufficient detail to establish guilt.

“If this is accepted as sufficient evidence to convict a person, there would be no case the state could not prove in this country,” Latheef said. “A trial would become a meaningless formality. I am confident that the honourable judges will not allow that.”