Opposition MPs raise concerns over bill expanding powers to withhold evidence

Opposition lawmakers have raised concerns over government-backed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code that would expand the circumstances in which prosecutors can seek to withhold evidence in criminal proceedings, warning that the changes could undermine defendants' rights and be used against political opponents.

The bill, submitted in August by Funadhoo MP Mohamed Mamdhooh of the ruling People's National Congress (PNC) on behalf of the government, was accepted by Parliament on Tuesday with 45 votes and referred to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration.

According to the bill, the amendments are intended to revise procedures governing the disclosure of evidence in criminal cases and introduce changes related to separate legislation on the recovery of proceeds of crime.

During the parliamentary debate, several opposition MPs argued that expanding the state's powers to withhold evidence could affect the fairness and transparency of criminal trials.

They also expressed concern that the proposed provisions could be used to pursue cases against political opponents, particularly if courts and judicial oversight institutions were subject to political influence.

Hulhumalé South MP Dr Ahmed Shamheed of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) said criminal proceedings should provide equal opportunities to the prosecution and the defence.

"When we seek to conceal or withhold evidence in this manner, we must remember that the accused and the state are equal before the law and before the courts. Both parties must have equal opportunities during a trial," Shamheed said.

He said granting additional legal powers to one party required careful consideration, particularly where the rights of defendants were concerned.

Some opposition lawmakers also questioned whether the judiciary and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) could exercise such powers independently.

They referred to the suspension of three Supreme Court justices and the subsequent removal of two of them, questioning the JSC's handling of those proceedings.

Velidhoo MP Mohamed Abbas of the Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) said the proposed changes should be considered alongside concerns about judicial independence.

He argued that the public could benefit from such legislation only if the judiciary and the JSC operated independently of political influence.

Abbas also warned against using evidence protection provisions to pursue individuals for political reasons.

"If this amendment is being introduced for the narrow purpose of imprisoning a particular individual, it will not benefit the public," he said.

However, government-aligned lawmakers rejected suggestions that the bill was intended to facilitate politically motivated prosecutions.

Hulhudhoo MP Mohamed Shahid of the PNC said the opposition's interpretation of the proposed amendments was unjustified.

He acknowledged that expanding powers to withhold investigative information and protect confidential witnesses could raise questions about defendants' rights, but argued that opposition lawmakers were using those concerns to make political accusations without properly examining the legislation.

Shahid said the bill should be considered on its provisions rather than assumptions about how the government might use the proposed powers.

The bill would distinguish between the powers available to prosecutors and defendants when applying for court orders to restrict, delay or prevent the disclosure of evidence.

Under the existing law, prosecutors are not required to disclose certain documents prepared for internal use by investigative authorities, or statements given to government officials, lawyers or investigators by witnesses and potential witnesses.

Courts can also issue protective orders restricting or delaying the disclosure of evidence where disclosure could expose a person to physical harm, substantial financial loss or coercion, interfere with an investigation, compromise evidence or lead to its destruction.

The proposed amendments would expand the grounds on which the prosecution could seek such orders.

These would include circumstances where disclosure could identify individuals involved in covert operations, reveal operational details of criminal investigations, expose the personal information of third parties, facilitate further criminal activity, constitute contempt of court, or disclose trade secrets or information that could harm commercial interests.

The bill would also allow prosecutors to seek protection for evidence where a person has received threats of serious harm.

The proposed changes to the provisions governing applications by defendants are more limited, with the bill primarily revising the wording of existing provisions.

The bill also proposes repealing Sections 192 to 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which govern procedures relating to property and money obtained through criminal activity.

The government has proposed removing these provisions because separate legislation on the recovery of proceeds of crime is being considered by Parliament.

The Asset Recovery Bill has already been accepted by Parliament and referred to the relevant committee for further examination.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code remain under parliamentary consideration and have not been enacted into law.

The Judiciary Committee will now examine the provisions before the bill returns to Parliament for further consideration.