Former President Abdulla Yameen conveyed to the Supreme Court that he harbored no intentions of neglecting the USD 5 million fine imposed upon him.
He said that the delay in completing the appeal stages of his jail sentence and subsequent fine was not a consequence of his actions.
The Elections Commission decided to reject Yameen’s candidacy for President due to his current 11 year jail sentence, the unpaid 5 million dollar fine and because the law prohibits those serving a jail sentence to participate in political activity.
Yameen's legal team appealed to the Supreme Court specifically regarding his disqualification from candidacy due to his jail sentence. They argued that the initial document provided by the Elections Commission only cited this reason for the rejection. However, during Friday's Supreme Court hearing, the Elections Commission cited the unpaid fine and the legal prohibition against individuals serving sentences engaging in political activity as additional factors for rejecting Yameen's candidacy.
During the trial, Yameen addressed the issue of the unpaid fine. He said that in cases where fines are required to be paid, the typical procedure is to wait for instructions from the Maldives Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA) specifying a definite time frame within which to settle the fine. Yameen emphasized that he had no intention of leaving the fine unpaid and was prepared to comply with the necessary requirements once instructed by MIRA.
"I have no intention of leaving the fine unpaid. The notification to pay the fine has not been sent to me, as is common practice. I want to clarify that the issue of proven debt is a separate principle," Yameen said.
Yameen said that he had requested the High Court to postpone the execution of both the prison sentence and the fine, emphasizing that the delays in concluding his appeal were responsible for the current situation.
“I have appealed my case. The appeal not being complete is not my fault” said Yameen.
Yameen's legal team stated that they became aware of the additional document from the Elections Commission after they had already submitted the appeal to the Supreme Court. They said that they didn't anticipate such a document from the Elections Commission and therefore did not seek to amend the appeal accordingly.
Mahfooz Saeed, the lawyer representing the Elections Commission, said that the issue of proven debt was a factor considered when initially rejecting Yameen's candidacy. However, since this reason was not explicitly stated in the initial document, the commission later revised the document to include this point and informed the relevant parties.
“The reasons were known when the appeal was submitted to court. The Elections Commission had called for the reply to be collected. The Commission had shared this information through a phone call” said Mahfooz.
In response to the Judges' questions about whether the Elections Commission had acted irresponsibly, Mahfooz stated that since the document was revised promptly upon realizing the error, the Commission had acted in the most responsible manner.
"This situation is not non-existent. It is known that the fine has to be paid. It is known that the Prisons and Parole Act has certain stipulations," said Mahfooz.
Secretary General of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Tholal, stated that the Commission had contacted him to collect a new document after the initial document rejecting Yameen's candidacy had been submitted. He said that he had sought clarification regarding the reasons for needing a second document.
Tholal said that upon returning to work the following day, he found an email from the Elections Commission containing a document. However, he refrained from opening the email as he was uncertain about the nature of the document and whether it should be accepted.
The case is being heard by all seven judges of the Supreme Court.
Sign In