High Court rules president need not testify in Adhadhu documentary defamation case

The High Court has upheld a Criminal Court decision not to call President Dr Mohamed Muizzu as a defence witness in a criminal defamation case involving a documentary published by Adhadhu, while overturning the lower court's decision to exclude Aishath Eesha Ashraf as a witness.

The ruling concerns a case brought against Adhadhu CEO Hussain Fiyaz Moosa and editor Hassan Mohamed over a documentary containing allegations against President Muizzu.

The two journalists had sought to call the President, Eesha and a criminal justice expert as defence witnesses during proceedings that began behind closed doors in September.

The Criminal Court initially decided not to admit their testimony following objections from the prosecution.

Fiyaz and Hassan subsequently appealed the decision to the High Court, seeking permission to present all three witnesses.

During the appeal proceedings, however, the defence withdrew its request concerning the criminal justice expert, leaving the High Court to determine whether the President and Eesha could be called as witnesses.

In its ruling issued on Tuesday, the High Court found that the Criminal Court had acted correctly in refusing to call President Muizzu as a defence witness.

The defence had sought the President's testimony to establish the authenticity of a letter that the prosecution said he had submitted to police on 28 April.

The defence also wanted the President to confirm whether he had watched the documentary, arguing that the contents of the letter suggested he had not viewed it.

According to the appeal submissions, the letter attributed to President Muizzu stated that claims made by Aishath Eesha in the video report alleging that he had committed adultery were false.

The defence argued that the documentary did not contain the word "adultery" and that the statements in the President's letter did not accurately reflect its contents.

The Criminal Court rejected the request to call President Muizzu, noting that the letter had been submitted to police as part of a request for an investigation.

The lower court also found that the President did not need to appear in court merely to dispute allegations he had already denied.

The High Court agreed that additional testimony was unnecessary to establish the letter's authenticity because there was no existing dispute over whether the letter was genuine.

It also noted that President Muizzu was the complainant in the case, while the prosecution was responsible for determining and pursuing the criminal charges.

The judges found no sufficient connection between the purpose for which the complainant sought an investigation, or his intentions in making the complaint, and the elements of the alleged offence that the prosecution was required to establish.

The High Court therefore unanimously upheld the Criminal Court's decision not to admit President Muizzu as a defence witness.

The High Court reached a different conclusion regarding Aishath Eesha Ashraf, who is also accused in the defamation case.

The prosecution has alleged that the woman speaking in the documentary was Eesha.

The defence sought to call her to establish that the statements made by the woman in the documentary did not amount to an allegation of adultery.

The defence also intended to use her testimony to challenge the allegations set out in the charges.

The Criminal Court had previously refused to admit Eesha as a witness, finding that her interpretation of the statements in the documentary was not relevant to determining the case.

The lower court maintained that whether the documentary contained an allegation of adultery was a matter to be determined during the trial.

However, the High Court found that Eesha could be considered a relevant witness because the prosecution had identified her as the woman speaking in the documentary.

The appellate court also noted that her testimony could assist the defence in addressing elements of the alleged offence.

It found that excluding her testimony could potentially restrict the defendants' ability to present their defence.

The High Court consequently overturned the Criminal Court's decision to exclude Eesha and ruled that she could be admitted as a defence witness.

The decision to admit Eesha was reached by a majority of the three-judge High Court bench.

Judges Mohamed Shaneez Abdulla and Abdul Maniu Hussain supported overturning the Criminal Court's ruling.

Judge Huzaifa Mohamed dissented.

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Huzaifa said the defence had not adequately explained how Eesha's interpretation of the statements in the documentary would help establish a particular element of its case.

She noted that the defence had also failed to demonstrate this relevance before the Criminal Court.

Judge Huzaifa therefore found insufficient grounds to overturn the lower court's decision.

The other two judges disagreed and ruled that the Criminal Court's exclusion of Eesha should be set aside.

All three judges agreed, however, that the Criminal Court had acted correctly in declining to call President Muizzu.

The High Court's ruling determines which witnesses may be presented by the defence. It does not decide the merits of the criminal defamation charges against the defendants.