Prosecutor General's Office has stated today that the High Court's ruling that new evidence cannot be submitted in the case against former President Abdulla Yameen is unconstitutional.
Prosecutor General's Office has stated today that the High Court's ruling that new evidence cannot be submitted in the case against former President Abdulla Yameen is unconstitutional.
The State submitted new evidence in the case of money laundering and bribery in the leasing of Vaavu atoll Aarah against Yameen.
At the time, Criminal Court accepted this evidence submitted under Article 135 of the Criminal Procedures Act. However, during the appeal process, High Court ruled that the evidence had been accepted wrongly.
High Court revoked the conviction of Yameen in the case, and the subsequent 11 year prison sentence against him, and ordered a retrial. At the time, the High Court also ruled that in the retrial, new evidence presented by the State cannot be accepted.
The State then appealed to the Supreme Court to rule that the new evidence can be accepted.
Hearings in this case commenced at Supreme Court today, where State prosecutor Ahmed Shafeeu said that the High Court's ruling contravenes Article 143 of the Constitution.
Article 143(d) of the Constitution states that lower courts shall follow the decisions of a higher court.
Shafeeu cited the Supreme Court's ruling in the Ali Zubair vs. State case, in which the apex court ruled that if the procedures are not completed, or completed with irregularities, then there will be the option to complete these and amend accordingly.
While High Court ordered to set aside the new evidence, it was done in a procedural matter, and so could be amended, he said. He said that in the instance of procedural issues surrounding new evidence, the matter should be decided through allowing debate on submitted issues against it, and the lower court then deciding on acceptance of that evidence. Shafeeu said that this option is open in the trial ongoing at the Criminal Court.
Shafeeu said that the High Court judges had not noted that submitting evidence while a trial is ongoing is against the law. Hence, the State appealed to the Supreme Court to overrule the High Court's ruling to not accept new evidence, and to allow debate in the lower court regarding new evidence and to reach a decision there.
Yameen's lawyer Hamza Latheef responded that the result of submitting evidence under wrong procedures at the wrong stage would be rejection of said evidence, saying there would be no alternative result of it.
Hamza maintained that in this instance, the State had submitted evidence in response to statements by witnesses. He said that this contravenes the tenets of fairness in the Constitution and said that this is an option not presented in the Maldives' legal system.
Hamza said the the court had decided on the issue of new evidence after taking into consideration the evidence submitted in response to witness statements. Based on this, the ruling in the case directly related to acceptance of evidence, he said.
Hamza stated that the State's actions have affected the rights of the defendant and this is not a procedural issue that can be easily resolved.
He said that if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the State in this case, it will only prove to further encourage a wrong.
Criminal Court resumed hearings in the Aarah case. Yameen's lawyers then stated that it is not right for the lower court to proceed hearings before the Supreme Court has ruled on the appeal case concerning new evidence. With this, the court has now halted the trial.
Yameen has also appealed to the Prosecutor General's Office to review the charges raised against him.
High Court also repealed the conviction of former parliamentarian for Felidhoo constituency Yoosuf Naeem in the same case.
Sign In
