During the Supreme Court trial for Yameen's candidacy challenge, Elections Commission have said that if the Constitution is interpreted in a manner that permits former President Abdulla Yameen to participate in the presidential elections, it could potentially result in individuals with significant criminal backgrounds occupying high-ranking positions within the state.
Yameen is presently serving an 11-year prison sentence following convictions for bribery and money laundering related to the Vaavu atoll Aarah lease case. The argument in favor of his presidential candidacy maintains that his ongoing sentence cannot be regarded as a final verdict due to the ongoing appeal process.
A final judgement is a verdict where all appeal stages have been concluded, appeal periods have lapsed, or a judgment has reached a state where alterations are no longer possible.
According to the Constitution an individual serving a sentence of more than 12 months for a criminal offence cannot contest in the presidential election.
Speaking at the Supreme Court hearing today, Mahfooz Saeed, the lawyer representing the Elections Commission, said that interpreting the constitution in a manner that permits individuals with verdicts that are not finalized to run for the presidency could potentially create a scenario where individuals with serious criminal backgrounds could assume the role of President and other high-ranking positions within the State.
Mahfooz further said that such an interpretation could potentially lead to a situation where Members of Parliament, Ministers, and Members of Independent Commissions could continue to hold their positions even if they have received sentences exceeding 12 months, solely on the grounds that their verdicts are not yet final. Holding these senior positions mandates not having a sentence exceeding one year.
"The interpretation will allow individuals serving sentences for criminal offenses potentially being elected or appointed to senior positions. For example, individuals convicted of criminal offenses might find themselves in the Parliament. This could also extend to those convicted of terrorism," Mahfooz said.
Mahfooz elaborated his case by illustrating a potential scenario in which members of the Parliament who are absent at the start of a session might be serving a prison sentence. He highlighted that these members could continue to hold their elected positions simply because their sentence is in the appeal stage. Mahfooz questioned whether the legislative body of the nation would intentionally structure the constitution to accommodate such a situation.
Mahfooz said that such an outcome could not be regarded as aligned with the intention of the Special Parliament that crafted the present Constitution. He pointed out that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that verdicts would stand unless overturned by another court.
Mahfooz highlighted that there was no compelling reason to interpret the constitution in the context of presidential eligibility. He also highlighted the Supreme Court's precedent that the constitution should be interpreted only when ambiguity arises.
Mahfooz further said that Yameen does not meet the prerequisites for holding the position of President due to his existing incarceration and financial liability. He highlighted that Yameen has an outstanding debt USD 5 million in conjunction with the ongoing prison sentence. According to Mahfooz, the penalty levied on Yameen for the offense of money laundering remains unpaid.
When questioned by the bench regarding the penalty, Yameen's legal representative, Hamza Latheef, responded that the issue of the established debt was not highlighted in the initial document provided by the Elections Commission, which outlined Yameen's ineligibility to participate in the elections. He said that this aspect was later communicated through a subsequent document provided by the commission.
Requesting an opportunity to address the court, Yameen underscored that the imposed penalty was an component of his prison sentence. He said that the deadline for fulfilling the fine obligation has not been reached. He added that the Maldives Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA) had not issued any directive for the fine to be paid as well.
Mahfooz countered by stating that the commission solely examined the payment status of the fine. He further said that individuals serving prison sentences are prohibited from engaging in political activities as stipulated by the Prisons and Parole Act. Mahfooz contended that this effectively renders Yameen ineligible to run in the presidential elections under the PPM ticket.
Mahfooz said that the opportunity remains available for PPM to propose another candidate. He made this response to Yameen's request for an additional opportunity to nominate an alternate candidate in the instance that he is unable to contest.
The case is being heard by the full bench of the Supreme Court.
Sign In
