Verdict in ex-army chief Shiyam's power abuse case delayed
Shiyam is accused of misusing his authority by allowing his father to reside in the Coast Guard building in Villimale’ from 2017.
Criminal Court on Thursday postponed its verdict in the case against Major General (retd) Ahmed Shiyam, the former chief of defence force, who faces charges of abusing his official position.
Shiyam is accused of misusing his authority by allowing his father to reside in the Coast Guard building in Villimale from 2017, a privilege allegedly granted without legal or procedural basis.
The primary charge revolves around the period from July 18, 2017, to December 11, 2018, during which Shiyam’s father lived in the VIP house, a facility intended for temporary accommodation of special guests visiting for army-related purposes.
The case alleges that:
-
Shiyam used his official position to arrange for his father’s stay in the building, despite no law, rule, or regulation permitting civilians, including family members of military personnel, to reside in such military facilities.
-
A former MNDF employee was assigned to care for Shiyam’s father during this time, further raising concerns about the misuse of resources.
-
The investigation found that these benefits, including the use of army resources and housing for personal purposes, should not have been extended to Shiyam’s father, constituting an abuse of Shiyam’s position.
Despite these allegations, Shiyam has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The hearings in the case were concluded last month, with the verdict initially scheduled to be delivered at 11:30 am on Thursday.
However, the Criminal Court informed the media that the hearing was canceled, as the presiding judge requested more time to further study the case.
This case was first investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), which initially ruled out any corruption.
However, in 2020, the Prosecutor General’s Office (PG) reopened the investigation, citing new concerns that warranted further legal scrutiny.
While it has been established that no specific rule governs the use of the VIP house, the building is part of military premises that are bound by strict protocols.
According to the Army Act, civilians are not allowed to live in army bases unless the provision of such services falls under the duties and responsibilities of the army. The investigation emphasised that Shiyam’s father, as a civilian, should not have been afforded these privileges.
Shiyam’s defence has maintained that his father’s residence in the VIP house did not violate any specific regulation, as there is no explicit rule prohibiting the use of the premises in this manner. Additionally, they argue that the tradition of military officers using facilities under their supervision for personal purposes has been a long-standing but informal practice within certain public institutions.
