Civil Court has rejected a compensation claim submitted by Ahmed Muaz (Gut Mua) who was arrested on charges of being involved in the enforced disappearance of journalist Ahmed Rilwan and murder of blogger Yameen Rasheed.
Civil Court has rejected a compensation claim submitted by Ahmed Muaz (Gut Mua) who was arrested on charges of being involved in the enforced disappearance of journalist Ahmed Rilwan and murder of blogger Yameen Rasheed.
The Commission on Deaths and Disappearances (DDCom) investigated the cases of Rilwan's disappeance and Yameen's murder and on June 26, 2022 arrested three individuals: Ismail Abdul Raheem (Isu), M. LagoonView, Ahmed Ismail (Ahan'dhu), Ma. Faagafilaa, and Muaz.
Muaz was kept in remand in custody until the end of trial, and had been released last year. Criminal Court ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove the terrorism charges that had been raised against Muaz.
With this, Muaz filed a case for compensation at the Civil Court claiming he had been kept in custody illegally, and in a manner that infringed upon his rights. The case was filed against the Prosecutor General's Office, President of the DDCom Fareesha Abdulla, members Misbah Abbas and Ahmed Nashid.
Muaz, in his claim, said that he had been arrested baselessly, in response to an investigation that had been run by the DDCom in bad faith. He then stated that the Prosecutro General's Office had pressed charges against him without justifiable cause. He appealed for a compensation of approximately MVR 10 million as damages.
The Prosecutor General's Office and members of DDCom raised questions about jurisdiction in the case.
Fareesha stated that this is a judicial review case and at the initial stage, it can be heard by the High Court. However, Civil Court ruled that if the Court is to comment on investigation and subsequent charges against Muaz, then there is a risk of raising questions about the court's impartiality, and hence it cannot be considered as a judicial review case.
In response to Muaz's claim, the Civil Court siad that there is no legal basis within the laws of the country to rule whether an investigation or charges were pressed in bad faith. They said that even in a civil proceeding, it must only be heard in a manner that does not encroach upon the authorities granted to the PG and investigative authorities.
It further said that the State does not accept this is a case that can be heard by a court as there is no evidence supporting the claim that the commission had acted in bad faith.
- Investigation was conducted and charges were pressed against Muaz in the accused case due to the commission, commission members and PG being of the belief that he may be guilty, and would need to face trial
- It is Muaz who must prove that charges were pressed against him for a reason other than stated. No statements or evidence has been submitted by Muaz for this matter
- The State has submitted evidence that Muaz, in the case in question, acted in ways that would create fear and intimidation amongst people, as well as evidence that Muaz had attempted to obstruct those who were working to find out what had happened to Rilwan
- It is clear that the Commission members and PGs did not work in bad faith even from the beginning
- Muaz was held in remand in custody under an order from the Criminal Court, an order which he did not appeal at the High Court
- The law indicates that the charges can be changed, and charges pressed against Muaz again, and as such, in this instance, it cannot be said that the investigation, or subsequent charges, were made in bad faith
Citing these factors, the Criminal Court decided that the case cannot be proceeded, and ruled to reject it.
Sign In
