The Criminal Court has stated that the letter sent by the prosecution requesting to withdraw their secret witness's testimony regarding blogger Yameen Rasheed's murder cannot be given any weight.

Yameen was attacked and killed with sharp objects in the stairwell of his home in April 2017. The prosecution charged Ismail Haisham Rasheed (H. Annaarumaage), Ahmed Zihan Ismail (Hulhumalé 11399), Mohamed Dhifran (GDh. Gadhdhoo, Sindhubaadhooge), Hassan Shifaz (M. Kudheheege), Ismail Rasheed (M. Thaif) and Hussain Ziyad (M. Kolhufushi East) in connection with the case.

The crime was proven against Haisham and Zihan in January 2022 in Criminal Court. Even though they were sentenced to life in prison, the crime could not be proven against the others, with them being acquitted.

Ismail Rasheed and Mohamed Dhifran's acquittals were appealed at High Court by the prosecution, with the prosecution appealing Haisham and Zihan's prison sentences at High Court as well.

Haisham and Zihan's legal teams appealed the ruling, with the prosecution appealing the court's ruling that the charges were not proven against Rasheed and Dhifran. The High Court also ordered the cases of all four of the accused to be reviewed once more. This is is relation to the letter sent by the secret witness requesting they withdraw their testimony.

After the secret witness's letter regarding the High Court's sentence was reviewed, the prosecution stated during today's hearing at the Criminal Court that there is no reason for the letter to carry any weight. The prosecution also said that even though the most recent letter states that they want to withdraw their testimony because of prior police intimidation, there was no reason none of it could have been mentioned during any of the previous stages.

The prosecution went on to say that as the witness's testimony was that they saw individuals leaving after Yameen had been attacked, video footage shows the witness being present at the scene. And so, the prosecution said that as the witness is aware they gave their testimony based on a verified truth, it raises questions as to their intent in requesting to withdraw their testimony later on.

The prosecution said that the police received information that some individuals had been intimidating witnesses when the witness testimonies were being taken, with a police statement reading that a family member of the secret witness stated the same. Additionally, the prosecution said that the police brought to their attention at the time that a number of people attempted to have the secret witness sign such a document.

As per the prosecution, there is no reason why the secret witness' testimony should be taken once again, and requested that the most recent letter should carry any weight by saying that there was an act of police intimidation.

The lawyers representing Haisham, Zihan, Rasheed and Dhifran said the secret witness' initial testimony included that they were taken to the police station one day before they were to give their witness testimony. Even then, the lawyers said the prosecution was unable to give a proper reason as to why the witness was taken to the police at the time.

The lawyers went on to say that the manner in which the secret witness' gave their initial testimony raised questions. The lawyers said while the testimony reads that they saw people who were wearing masks and wigs leaving the scene, they were unable to say as to how they knew who the people were exactly.

Regarding the acts of intimidation against witnesses when their testimonies were being taken, the lawyers said that as Haisham and Zihan have been held in remand since the lower court until now, there is no way they could have exerted their influence. The lawyers also said the police did not say whether certain individuals had intimidated the witnesses.

According to the lawyers, even if the court rules not to give the letter any weight, there is no other evidence that has been submitted that can convict them of their crimes. They continued that even though a video analysis report is the only piece of evidence remaining, it does not have the capacity to prove the crimes against them.

Additional hearings for the case will be held in the future.

The bench consists of presiding Judge Ihsan, Judge Mohamed Misbah, and Judge Ali Nadeem.