The testimony of former Vice President Ahmed Adheeb and former Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation (MMPRC) Managing Director Abdulla Ziyath can no longer be accepted under the provisions of the current Evidence Act, lawyers representing former President Abdulla Yameen stated.
While an 11-year prison sentence had been imposed on Yameen over charges of accepting bribes and money laundering in connection with the leasing transaction of V. Aarah, the High Court subsequently quashed that sentence and ordered the Criminal Court to retry the case.
Although the state appealed the High Court's ruling, which concluded that new evidence could not be accepted, to the Supreme Court, that court also upheld the decision that new evidence is inadmissible. Following this ruling, the Criminal Court recommenced the trial of the case today.
As a preliminary objection prior to the commencement of the trial, Yameen's legal team requested that the testimonies of Adheeb and Ziyath not be accepted, proceeding on the belief that neither individual's testimony can be admitted under the framework of the currently enforced Evidence Act.
When the Criminal Court initially delivered its verdict in the case, the new Evidence Act had not yet entered into force. However, by the time the High Court instructed the Criminal Court to review the case anew, the new Evidence Act was actively in force.
Yameen's lawyer, Hamza Latheef, highlighted Articles 48 and 49 of the Evidence Act, which stipulate:
- Individuals whose integrity and fairness are questionable shall be regarded as persons who have lost their credibility to give testimony.
- Accordingly, individuals convicted of crimes such as theft, larceny, embezzlement, robbery, fraud, swindling, and corruption shall be considered persons whose honesty and fairness are in question.
- The testimony of a non-credible person may only be accepted in a situation where there is no other person giving testimony who constitutes sufficient evidence regarding a specific incident.
Hamza noted that even prior to the enforcement of the Evidence Act, it had already been established in the Ga. Vodamula case that the testimonies of Adheeb and Ziyath could be accepted because the Supreme Court deemed both individuals to harbor hostility toward Yameen.
Rebutting Yameen's lawyer, State Attorney Ahmed Shafiu argued that Adheeb and Ziyath must be regarded as the two individuals with the most comprehensive knowledge of the corruption involved in the case, adding that the state will submit other evidence to corroborate their testimonies.
In addition to the testimonies of Adheeb and Ziyath, Yameen's side also petitioned to reject the testimony of former People's Majlis Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim. The lawyer stated that this was because Nazim's testimony was offered on the grounds that he possesses some information regarding MMPRC corruption while lacking a clear understanding of the V. Aarah case.
The state similarly submitted an objection requesting the exclusion of Yameen's defense evidence. The State Attorney stated this was requested because defendants should not be permitted during trial to introduce evidence that was withheld after choosing to remain silent during the investigative stage of the case.
The evidence the state requested to exclude includes testimonies from former Malé Deputy Mayor Ahmed Nareesh, an individual named Abdulla Rasheed, Vilimalé constituency parliamentarian Mohamed Ismail, and Hithadhoo constituency parliamentarian Mohamed Shahid, alongside a document indicating the exchange of dollars.
Both Yameen and Yoosuf Naeem maintain as a defense in the case that the one million US dollars deposited into Yameen's account was funds obtained from a dollar-exchange transaction, and that the equivalent Maldivian Rufiyaa for those dollars was handed over to Yoosuf Naeem in cash. Nareesh had previously testified that the funds were counted and handed over.
However, as significant questions have been raised regarding his testimony, Nareesh has refused to testify as a defense witness in the R. Fuhgiri case against Yameen.
The Criminal Court trial concerning the charges against Yameen regarding bribery and money laundering in connection with the lease of R. Fuhgiri is also ongoing. Although a hearing for that case was scheduled for last week, it was canceled.
In the prosecution against Yameen alleging the acceptance and laundering of one million US dollars in bribes regarding the Fuhgiri lease transaction, the testimony-taking phase has concluded, and the matter is currently at the stage of presenting arguments regarding evidence, a stage the case has remained in for a prolonged period.
