State prosecutors stated in Supreme Court on Sunday that former Vice President Ahmed Adeeb was wrongfully sentenced to 10 years in prison over alleged possession of firearms, declaring insufficient evidence.
Previously, the state pressed terrorism charges against the former VP, stating that he was in possession of a pistol during the opposition-led May Day rally of May, 2015. The Criminal Court sentenced Adeeb to prison after finding him guilty of the terrorism charges. The Supreme Court also upheld the lower court's verdict.
During Sunday's appeal hearing, state prosecutor Abdulla Rabiu claimed that investigative bodies failed to recover the pistol and that the only proof against Adeeb were witness testimonies, adding that the witnesses were not qualified to authenticate the weapon.
Rabiu further alleged that it was the view of the state that, only the witnesses were in surety over the pistol, and the opinion was not held by others.
According to the testimonies of the witnesses, all the properties of a firearm were not present in the alleged pistol in Adeeb's possession, Rabiu said.
The testimonies of the witnesses pertaining to the pistol allegedly in Adeeb's possession were insufficient in attributing the properties expected to be present in such a firearm.
Following the statements, the state rested, requesting the presiding judge to pass a just verdict.
The judge's bench, in response, raised a number of questions to the state.
Questioning whether the state believed there was sufficient evidence against Adeeb, the judges demanded the state's view on the sentences delivered by the lower courts.
Rabiu responded that the state's position was that there is insufficient evidence, with no qualms respective to the constitution, and therefore believes that the sentences by both the lower courts were incorrect.
The judges then asked what the result required by law would be if the state believed the sentence to be false.
"If it is a lawfully wrong sentence, the result would be having to annul the sentence", said Rabiu.
The judges bench further questioned why the state had reversed its position when it had spoken against the case in the lower courts.
Rabiu answered that after reviewing the evidence presented at the time, the state had pressed the matter as they believed the sentence was just. However, upon further reviewing, the state found the evidence to be insufficient.
The bench also questioned Adeeb regarding whether he had ever been in possession of a pistol as well as why witnesses presented testimonies stating so.
Adeeb maintained that he had never been in possession of a pistol and that the act was perpetrated with the intent of framing him.
Moreover, Adeeb's lawyer Mohamed Ismail demanded that the sentence be nullified on the same day, as the state believed it to be untrue.
Lawyer Ismail asserted that possession of prohibited objects, including weapons, was a criminal offence that must carry strict liability and that the crime could only be proven if such an item were discovered by an investigative organisation. He stated that previous rulings issued by the Supreme Court supported his statement.
The state, however, refuted him.
Rabiu asserted that the state does not believe that a person is found guilty in the circumstance that an investigative organisation finds an illegal item in the possession of the individual only. Moreover, he stated that an investigative body recovering the item is not required, as per the decisions made by the Supreme Court in previous cases.
According to Rabiu, it can be a necessity to recover the items in cases such as possession of illegal narcotics, as there may be other items that resemble the drugs.
However, in cases of items such as swords and knives, it is not mandated for an investigative organization to uncover the items as any common person has the ability to identify them, Rabiu said.
Additionally, Rabiu asserted that the testimonies of an expert are required in these cases, since the authenticity of the weapons cannot be confirmed upon sight only.
The Supreme Court concluded the hearings on Sunday, announcing that the verdict will be passed in the next hearing.
The judges residing on the bench for this case includes Chief Justice Dr Ahmed Abdulla Didi, Judge Adam Mohamed and Judge Abdul Ghani Mohamed. The Chief Justice is the presiding judge.
Adeeb is serving two other sentences excluding the sentence over possession of firearms. The former VP was sentenced to 15 years over the explosion aboard the presidential speedboat "Finifenmaa" in 2015, in addition to the eight-year sentence over the embezzlement of Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation's (MMPRC) funds.
Sign In