While the Criminal Court initially accepted the new evidence under Article 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code, High Court ruled that the Criminal Court had made an error in admitting the evidence after the trial had started.
The Supreme Court today concluded hearings on the appeal against the High Court's decision to quash the dismissal of new evidence in the case of former President Abdulla Yameen.
The prosecution had submitted new evidence relating to witness testimony in Yameen’s trial, where he is accused of accepting and laundering USD 1 million in bribes in connection with a lease transaction for Vaavu atoll Aarah.
While the Criminal Court initially accepted the new evidence under Article 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code, High Court ruled that the Criminal Court had made an error in admitting the evidence after the trial had started.
As a result, the High Court annulled Yameen’s conviction and ordered a retrial excluding the new evidence. The prosecution appealed the High Court's decision to the Supreme Court, seeking to have the evidence re-admitted.
The prosecution argued that the new evidence was necessary to disprove false testimony given by a defense witness, Male’ City Council Deputy Mayor Ahmed Nareesh. In addition, Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) requested letters from the President’s Office, signed minutes from the Economic Council, and related documents.
During today’s hearing, Prosecutor General’s Office lawyer Ahmed Shafiu said that the Criminal Procedure Act allows for the disclosure of evidence at any stage of a trial. He said that the new evidence had been submitted because a witness had provided false testimony, and the prosecution needed the opportunity to expose the lie. Without this opportunity, Shafiu argued, justice would be compromised.
Shafiu further contended that the High Court’s refusal to accept the new evidence was due to the lower court not having been given a chance to consider it. He argued that the trial should be allowed to proceed with the new evidence, as it was critical for upholding justice.
On the other hand, Yameen’s lawyer, Hamza Latheef, opposed the prosecution’s request. He stated that it was not acceptable for evidence to be introduced at any stage of the trial, as trials are structured with clear stages for evidence disclosure.
Hamza said that evidence can only be presented after the trial stage in exceptional cases, such as when new, crucial evidence (like DNA) emerges. He argued that the prosecution was not introducing new evidence to prove the facts of the case but was only seeking to refute the defense's witness statements.
Hamza contended that the prosecution had already had the opportunity to request the relevant evidence at the preliminary stage but failed to do so. Allowing new evidence to be presented at any stage would lead to endless delays he said. Therefore, Hamza urged the Supreme Court to reject the prosecution’s appeal.
Hamza also criticized the prosecution’s handling of the case, stating that Yameen was exhausted from the legal back-and-forth, in a never-ending cycle.
“Gone are the days when people were tired and confessed to the charges brought by the prosecution,” Hamza said.
After clarifying some points, the court concluded today’s hearing. The next hearing will be held to determine the outcome of the case.
The trial in the Aarah case has resumed in the Criminal Court. However, the Criminal Court has adjourned further proceedings until the Supreme Court reaches a decision on the matter, as Yameen’s lawyers have argued it is not acceptable to continue the case while the appeal is still pending.
Yameen's lawyer has also filed a motion with the Prosecutor General's Office to review the charges against him.
Earlier, High Court had quashed the prison sentence for Yameen and former MP Yoosuf Naeem.
Sign In
