Shifau’s lawyer argues 109-year prison sentence is excessive

Former Supreme Court justice Husnu Al Suood has challenged the 109-year prison sentence imposed on Hussain Shifau, arguing that there is no purpose in imposing a sentence so long that it cannot practically be served.

Suood, who is representing Shifau in his appeal before the High Court, made the argument during the first appeal hearing on Wednesday.

Shifau was convicted in a case involving fraudulent telegraphic transfers (TTs) used in transactions with overseas companies through Kingdom of Fruits, a business registered with the Economic Ministry.

The prosecution brought 23 charges against Shifau over separate transactions: nine counts of knowingly submitting false documents, seven counts of fraud and seven counts of money laundering.

The Criminal Court found him guilty on all 23 charges and, in December 2025, sentenced him to a combined 109 years, 10 months and 24 days in prison. He was also fined MVR 7 million.

Shifau appealed the convictions and sentences, arguing that the Criminal Court incorrectly interpreted Article 1006 of the Penal Code when determining how sentences should be combined where a defendant is convicted of multiple offences.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Suood argued that the application of Article 1006 should not be limited only to multiple offences prosecuted under the Penal Code.

He said it was also incorrect to apply the provision on combining sentences only where multiple charges arose from a single incident.

Suood argued that the Criminal Court’s interpretation had resulted in Shifau receiving a total prison term exceeding a century, which he said was not the outcome envisaged by Article 1006.

“When the total sentences for offences proven against one person reach a length that is unreasonable, in my view it shows that this provision has not been applied in the manner it should be,” Suood told the court.

He argued that properly applying the provision would result in a substantially shorter sentence.

Suood said there was little purpose in imposing a sentence that could not realistically be completed within a person’s lifetime.

“That is not how the Penal Code is designed,” he said, noting that even some of the most serious offences carry substantially shorter prison terms.

The High Court bench questioned Suood about lengthy prison sentences imposed in other countries.

Suood responded that such sentences produced little practical result beyond generating headlines.

“There are countries where sentences of 1,000 years are imposed and others where sentences of 900 years are imposed,” he said. “But I do not think that is something we should take as an example. We do not see a benefit from it.”

Shifau’s legal team asked the High Court to overturn the sentences and send the case back to the Criminal Court for resentencing.

The state opposed the appeal, arguing that there was no error in the way the Criminal Court determined the sentence.

State attorney Hawwa Nahi argued that Article 1006 was not intended to result in imprisonment for an unreasonable period. However, she said the provision was also not intended to allow a person convicted of numerous offences to avoid punishment for some of those offences.

The state argued that the Criminal Court had not incorrectly applied the provision when sentencing Shifau.

Nahi also said that although the 23 charges were filed separately, they ultimately arose from the same case and were prosecuted together to expedite proceedings.

The state therefore asked the High Court to uphold the Criminal Court’s sentencing decision.

Shifau is currently under temporary house arrest on medical grounds. Homeland Security Minister Ali Ihusaan said this week that he had initially been transferred home for one month under provisions allowing prisoners to receive treatment outside prison in specified circumstances.