The SC has revoked the release order of Irfan Thagiyyu, who was caught smuggling 72 kg worth of drugs into the Maldives. Irfan Thagiyyu, who is from S.Hulhudhoo 'Deliaage', was released on bail previously, but the court has now overturned that decision.
Today, the Supreme Court (SC) revoked the release order of S.Hulhudhoo, ‘Deliaage’, Irfan Thagiyyu who was caught smuggling 72 kg worth of drugs into the Maldives. The court has also revised the current practice of reviewing remand in custody during trial proceedings, setting in place stricter measures.
Irfan, one of the key individuals accused in the 72-kg drug case, which was seized while being smuggled into the country via sea, has been charged with trafficking Diaformin into the Maldives.
Irfan, a suspect who was in judicial custody, received two orders for his release from the Criminal Court. The latest order was upheld by the High Court, which also declared that he was granted bail in accordance with proper legal procedures.
Today, the Supreme Court unanimously set aside the High Court and Criminal Courts’ decision to release Irfan from custody.
The Supreme Court ruled that the remand order of the individual ordered to remain in custody till the end of the trial should also be reviewed under Article 60(V) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Prosecutor General Office said the rules set out in the judgment ‘Shaheeb Ibrahim V Prosecutor General’s Office’ should also be considered.
As per the ruling, the judge must assess if there is sufficient evidence to hold the accused accountable for the offence and whether any of the four situations defined in Article 49 of the Constitution are applicable. The prosecution must present evidence that convinces the judge that one of the circumstances listed in Article 49 of the Constitution exists.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence presented in the original case against the accused should not be taken into account beyond the scope laid down by the previous Supreme Court judgment. The verdict stated that under this, if the follow up order on his remand in custody refers to the former and creates debate around the reasons for his release based on evidence in the original case, then the relevance of the verdict in the original case gets affected and becomes less effective.
“This should not happen. The judge should not express his views on the evidence before the trial and the verdict”, the ruling said.
“If the appellate courts weigh the evidence and make a decision based on it, the trial of the original case will be interrupted and the entire trial process will be destroyed”, the ruling also stated.
Therefore, in reviewing the remand, the judge should not take into account any developments in the proceedings of the original case and should instead consider whether there has been a change in the circumstances mentioned in Article 49 of the Constitution. The verdict stated the following:
- Using the means by which the judge sought assistance in deciding on remand, the police and prosecution can clarify whether the initial remand order was given out of fear of tampering with evidence or destruction of evidence - If the first remand order was issued on the basis that the individual may abscond, the police and the prosecution can clarify if they escaped - If the first remand order was issued on the basis of a threat to the community’s safety, the police and prosecution can explain the matter at the time of reviewing the order - If the initial remand order was given on the assumption that the individual may not appear in court, the police and prosecution can explain the situation at the time of reviewing the order - In the case where there is no reason for detention, the judge has the discretion to release the person on conditional bail if a sufficient amount of money is given to the court as a guarantee that they will appear in court The Supreme Court’s verdict raised the question of whether the facts being disclosed by the evidence in the original case should be taken into account when reviewing the custody period to determine whether the person still poses a danger to society. The verdict also decides the extent to which, if any, it can be taken into account.
The court said the purpose of reviewing the remand period every 30 days is to establish a rule that the accused does not remain in custody for more than necessary. One of the solutions proposed by the ruling was to fast-track the cases of individuals who have spent a long time in remand custody.
Justice Husnu Suood of the Supreme Court, said that the release of a person who may pose a threat to the society even if they remain in custody for a lengthy period of time is not stated in Article 49 of the Constitution.
“Based on the way the current criminal justice system is in place in the Maldives, the only way to resolve it is to expedite the trial process”, the verdict said. “The only option of expediting the trial process is to provide the judiciary with adequate buildings and staff at the earliest”.
“The expectation to expedite the trial process or reduce the number of remand detainees without providing necessary resources is similar to drawing lines in the ocean or trying to touch the moon on a moonlit night”.
Sign In
