High Court asks PG to resubmit Jihad's amended charges
As a result, the judges directed the PG's office to rectify the situation and produce Jihaad in court within 15 days.
Top Stories
High Court on Thursday remanded the appeal filed by the prosecution against the dismissal of charges against former Vice President Abdulla Jihad in the K. Fushidhiggaru island lease case, sending it back to the Prosecutor General's (PG) Office for further action.
This decision follows the Criminal Court's earlier dismissal of the case on July 25, when it ruled that the prosecution could not proceed. In response, the prosecution appealed the dismissal to the High Court on August 29, with a hearing held on September 11.
However, on Thursday, the High Court returned the case to the PG's office after determining that proper procedures had not been followed regarding the summons of Jihad. A three-judge bench unanimously ruled that Jihad had not been properly served with the order to appear in court, citing issues with delivering the summons to his correct address.
The High Court outlined several key points in its ruling:
-
The summons was not sent to the address listed in the appeal form.
-
Jihad’s current registered address, according to the PG's office, is M. West View, third floor, but the summons was not delivered to that address either.
-
When court officials visited the address to serve the summons, they were informed that Jihad did not reside there.
As a result, the judges directed the PG's office to rectify the situation and produce Jihad in court within 15 days. The charge sheet must be resubmitted after confirming Jihad's correct address or ensuring his court appearance.
Jihad faces allegations relating to the development of K. Fushidhiggaru as a resort. He was accused of forming a joint venture company in which the state held only a 25% stake, contrary to a cabinet decision mandating a 50% stake for the government. The joint venture agreement in question involved Prime Capital Maldives Limited.
The charges against Jihad include acting in a manner that was not in the best interest of the state or its people.
However, the Criminal Court dismissed these charges during a pre-trial motion, ruling that the charges were defective and, therefore, could not be heard in court.
