Supreme Court mandates joint probe in conflict of interest cases
Although the Criminal Court made this decision, the High Court ruled that the investigation was null and void as it was in violation of laws.
By
Shafna Hussain
Supreme Court ruled on Sunday declared a police investigation into allegations that Drug Enforcement Department (DED) police assaulted a foreigner in a raid wrongful citing conflict of interest in the probe.
On 5 July 2019, following reports of drug abuse and selling, police raided M. Ujaalaage in Male. During the raid, police officers had assaulted a foreigner on the scene.
Eleven police officers had been investigated regarding the case and eight were charged:
-
Abdul Muhaimin of Dilasaage, GA. Kolamaafushi
-
Adam Mohamed of Gurahage, GDh. Thinadhoo
-
Afsal Zahir of Fassiya, GA. Kolamaafushi
-
Ahmed Naushad of Kethi, F. Nilandhoo
-
Asaad Moosa, Malaz of HA. Hoarafushi
-
Hassan Faisal of Hathiha, HA. Hoarafushi
-
Hussain Nafiu of Oivaru, GA. Kolamaafushi
-
Mohamed Ali of Himalaya, R. Kandholhudhoo
Before the Criminal Court began its trial, police had requested to annul the charges, saying it was an investigation conducted by the police without the authority to investigate. However, the Criminal Court decided that the trial would continue.
High Court later ruled that the investigation was null and void as it was in violation of Article 76 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Article 76 of the Criminal Procedure Code states:
-
If an office has jurisdiction over a particular type of criminal investigation in a criminal case under investigation, the case should be submitted to the office in context to carry out the investigation, or a joint investigation should be conducted.
The state appealed the High Court's ruling at the Supreme Court.
In its judgement on Sunday, the Supreme Court answered the question on whether the police can conduct an investigation alone in a case where more than one agency has jurisdiction to investigate.
The National Integrity Commission (NIC) is the institution responsible for investigating violations of the law and regulations by law enforcement agencies and their employees.
The state says that although the NIC and the Human Rights Commission have jurisdiction to investigate the case, they do not have exclusive jurisdiction, and conducting a joint investigation into the case is unnecessary.
The state claims:
-
The High Court has interpreted Article 76 of the Criminal Procedure Code wrongly
-
If the High Court's interpretation is correct, the investigation cannot be carried out without the two entities working together in the event of conducting a joint investigation
-
It is the prerogative of the two agencies with jurisdiction to decide whether the case will be investigated jointly or not
In its ruling, the Supreme Court said that there was no dispute that crimes involved in this case allowed other law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction to investigate as well.
The Supreme Court said:
-
Criminal offence against the accused is based on actions they have committed in police service
-
Investigation of police offences by police alone will increase the chances of conflict of interest
-
With the existence of an agency established to investigate such cases, it is not the best way to conduct the investigation without a word from them
"There is a chance for the police to be biassed or neglect some issues in investigating such cases by themselves," the verdict read.
The Supreme Court also stated that it is the basic principle of justice all legal systems must accept that an institution cannot make fair decisions on a case that involves their own interests.
-
Article 76 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not consider it optional
-
If the article is interpreted otherwise, it will affect the responsibilities assigned to various agencies in the other laws that have been passed by the parliament
-
If there is an obstacle to conducting criminal investigations through joint investigations; this can only be remedied by the parliament
The three-judge Supreme Court bench unanimously ruled that the police went about the investigation wrongfully, and that the court did not need to change the High Court's ruling.
