The Supreme Court, on Monday, confirmed that the hearings for Former Vice President Mohamed Jameel Ahmed’s case, lodged over his claim of being “unconstitutionally” impeachment from office in July 2015, were scheduled to commence this month.
The first of his hearings is set to take place on November 19, presided over by Chief Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan, in addition to five justices on the Supreme Court bench.
The first Vice President for former President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom, Dr Jameel initially lodged his case at the apex court in April 2019.
As above, Jameel was impeached five years earlier, amidst allegations of attempting to align with the opposition to oust and replace Yameen as president.
In addition, Jameel faced major accusations linking him to the infamous protests on May Day protests held by the opposition on May 1, 2015.
Nevertheless, he has since maintained that his dismissal was the result of false accusations.
Following his dismissal, the former VP left Maldives, claiming he needed to fly to neighbouring Sri Lanka for medical purposes. It was then reported that he had taken up residence in United Kingdom, and Jameel did not return until after the election of incumbent President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih.
Noting that the detention of political leaders was commonplace during the Yameen administration, James stated his reasoning for residing abroad was due to the likelihood that the then-leadership was plotting for his arrest.
Local media Mihaaru reported that the former VP claimed his impeachment was “undeniably unconstitutional” as the parliament was only one component of the three separated powers in the Presidential governing system.
At that time, ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) held majority in Parliament.
Jameel also said that the case was rushed to conclusion without regard to due process assured by the constitution.
“I was impeached in violation of consitution. I was not allowed an opportunity to respond. Legal representation through a lawyer is a right that can not be negated, however that as well as Article 100 of the constitution, was violated.”