Muaz compensation lawsuit that was dismissed submitted to HC

Ahmed Muaz (Gatu Mua) who was arrested after the Commission on Investigation of Murders and Enforced Disappearances (DDCom) investigation had his case for compensation dismissed by the Civil Court, has since appealed the case to the High Court. The investigation in question by DDCom was regarding the disappearance of journalist Ahmed Rilwan and blogger Yameen Rasheed.

DDCom arrested Ismail Abdul Raheem (Isu, M. Lagoon View), Ahmed Ismail (Ahandhu, Ma. Faagafila) and Muaz on 26th June 2022 regarding their investigation into the disappearance of journalist Ahmed Rilwan and blogger Yameen Rasheed.

Muaz was released from custody after the trial had ended in 2023. The Criminal Court dismissed the terrorism conspiracy charges due to a lack of prosecutable evidence.

Muaz filed charges against the Prosecutor General's (PG) office to the Civil Court in order to be compensated for wrongful detention and loss of rights. He also filed charges against DDCom and DDCom commissioners Fareesha Abdulla, Misbah Abbas, and Ahmed Nashid.

The PG office and commission members put forth questions as to whether the Civil Court can take on such a case and objected on the grounds of jurisdiction. The Civil Court's sentence was to bring the case to a halt and dismiss it.

While Muaz brought his appeal to the High Court, the prosecution objected to the High Court's statement that they cannot proceed with the case. The prosecution stated that charges cannot be filed against the commission as it has since been dissolved.

While the High Court publicized their decision on their website, the judges that were on the case reached the consensus to look at the case fully in regards to the objection and to commence with sentencing. And so, the High Court has decided to move forward with the trial.

Muaz has recently signed with the current administration's political party, PNC.

As per Muaz's lawsuit, the PG office, DDCom and commission members had acted in bad faith, with the investigation and detainment of Muaz earning him compensation.

The Civil Court stated that there is no framework in Maldivian law that can ascertain whether an investigation was conducted in bad faith. The verdict said that even within a civil case, the freedom, choices and powers of the PG and those involved in an investigation were not interrupted and were conducted within procedural limits.

Even though the lawsuit states that the commission acted beyond its responsibility and powers or acted in bad faith, the prosecution stated that they do not view this case as a matter that the court can take on as no prosecutable evidence was submitted. And so, the ruling was to identify any barriers in moving forward with the lawsuit and find solutions.