Advertisement
Tourist reading at Hulhumale' beach area: the attack on tourists are believed to be retaliation against government for antiterrorism operations. Photo/Dhauru

Tourist attack case: 2 on house arrest for violating surveillance order

Although the state sought imprisonment for the two men, the judge decided to place them under house arrest.

12 September 2022

By Najaah Masood

Criminal Court on Sunday ordered two individuals who were released from custody under 'MoniCon' surveillance in connection with an attack on tourists in Hulhumale to be placed in house arrest. 

The two people sentenced to house arrest for violating MoniCon orders, established under the Terrorism Act, are:

  • Ali Hamzath - Seasonge’, G. Dh. Vaadhoo

  • Ibrahim Ahsan Ahmed, Fehivilla, R. Kandholhudhoo

Under the surveillance order, the High Court on 7 May 2020 ordered them not to travel to the surburbs of Hulhumale and Villimale. However, the state claims that the two had travelled to Hulhumale in individual cards on 18 November 2020.

Both of them were released on the basis of there being no sufficient evidence after being arrested in connection with the February 2020 stabbing of tourists in Hulhumale. A GPS tag was issued under the Terrorism Act after they were released without charges.

Ibrahim Ahsan Ahmed declined the offer of a lawyer and did not even present the court with any defence witness. According to his testimony:

  • He went to Hulhumale in a taxi, but did not get out of the car while it was in Hulhumale.

  • He said that he cannot be accused of going to Hulhumale when he had not disembarked from the vehicle  nor met anyone during the time he was there.

  • He is a taxi driver and in his line of work, Hulhumale trips are unavoidable.

  • He pleaded not guilty

Ali Hamzath sought the assistance of a lawyer. Hamzath's defence arguments include:

  • MoniCon order is believed to have been violated if it was violated without a valid excuse.

  • He had to travel to Hulhumale after he got a call from his friend who had taken his son on a drive to Hulhumale; The car had stopped and he had gone to Hulhumale because his son was in distress and needed him.

  • His friend, who had taken Hamzath’s child on a ride to Hulhumale, as well as those friends he had asked for the ride to fetch his child, all testified on his behalf.

  • Hamzath also pleaded not guilty.

The Criminal Court ruled that it was undeniable that the two men had travelled to Hulhumale in a car when they had been sentenced otherwise. The court also ruled that further deliberation was required to ascertain if both men had valid reasons to violate the MoniCon order.

The main defence stance taken by Hamzath’s lawyer was that he absolutely had to travel to Hulhumale given the valid excuse.

However, his lawyer’s stance is in conflict with his initial statement to the police when he was taken into custody. The Criminal court also noted that it was not immediately clear why Hamzath contacted his friends instead of sending his family to Hulhumale.

The Criminal Court ruled that the evidence was not enough to ascertain that he had violated the Monicon order for valid reasons.

Ahsan had not said much in his own defence, and so he was also charged with violation against the MoniCon order.

MoniCon order violations are sentenced with a maximum 18 months jail time or house arrest. The state sought the maximum sentence for them both, but Judge Adam Mohamed decided to place the two men under house arrest.

The sentence slated for both of them is:

  • Ahsan: House arrest for 10 months

  • Hamzath: House arrest for eight months

The Judge’s verdict was based on:

  • Even if they went to Hulhumale, there was no evidence that they had met anyone. 

  • They had not been charged with any offences when the MoniCon order had been levied on them.

  • No one was harmed or injured for violating the order.

An Australian national and two Chinese tourists were stabbed in Hulhumale in 2020 in retaliation for the anti-terrorism operation conducted in R. Maduvvari. In addition, a police officer had testified in court in another terrorism case that they had intelligence reports that the attacks were in retaliation for religious extremist Abdulla Ali Manik’s children being taken to state custody. 

Although several people were arrested in connection with the case, none of them have been charged.

Comments

profile-image-placeholder