![](https://cdn.atolltimes.mv/media/s3/media/2024/07/25/1dd2267d-417e-4928-8115-015175b24120.webp?fit=crop-50-50&w=1200&h=900)
Jihad's corruption charges dismissed
The court ruled that the case could not be heard because the charges against Jihad were flawed.
By
Fathmath Ahmed Shareef
The Criminal Court on Thursday dismissed the charges against Abdullah Jihad, a former Vice President, for acting otherwise in a matter that would benefit the public or the state in the Kaafu atoll Fushidhiggaru lagoon case.
Jihad was sued under former President Mohamed Waheed. Back when he was finance minister, the cabinet decided to enter into a joint venture agreement with a private company to develop 50% of the lagoon as a special tourist zone. Jihad, had meanwhile entered into an agreement with the company Prime Capital Maldives Limited with the state’s stake at 25% instead of 50%.
The Criminal Court dismissed the case in its decision on the pre-trial motion. The court ruled that the case could not be heard because the charges against Jihad were flawed.
Judge Hussain Faiz Rashad heard the case and ruled:
-
The Asset Recovery Commission, which was set up by the previous government, sent the case for prosecution
-
The documents do not show that the Asset Recovery Commission has done anything to verify the authenticity of his statement; the prosecution has not commented on the matter
-
The court relies on the fact that the charges against Jihad were not conducted in the course of a fair investigation
-
An investigation that identifies deficiencies will also affect the criminal charges brought against a person
In making this decision, the judge considered Jihad's pre-trial motion that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) had ruled that the case did not involve corruption, but Jihad was not informed why the Asset Recovery Commission had decided to investigate the case again.
The court ruled that no matter what institution investigates a criminal case, the accused should be given a legal warning informing him of the charges against him. Otherwise, the court ruled that the re-examined case would be questioned and the case would be affected.