Department of Judicial Administration (DJA), on Wednesday, revealed that the President of the Commission on Investigation of Murders and Enforced Disappearances, Husnu Al Suood, refused to provide information to the Supreme court regarding his claims of gang influence in the Criminal Court.
In a press conference, the Chancellor of the Judicial Academy, Ahmed Majidh, stated that the presidential commission had failed to comply with the apex court's deadline to present information.
Majidh also stated that the commission sent a letter to the Supreme Court refusing to present this information without providing any reason for the decision.
According to the Chancellor, there was no believable reason to refuse to elaborate previous claims of gang influence to the Supreme Court, if the accusations had been based on a solid foundation.
Majidh also stated that making claims which damaged the reputation of judges could be considered contempt of court, and that there were no barriers to taking steps against Suood.
Despite the warning, the Chancellor did not specify whether or not such actions would be taken, as the final decision laid with the Supreme Court which would also determine the exact measures and guidelines under which they would be applied.
According to Majidh, Suood's decision to forgo procedures currently in place to deal with concerns regarding the judicial system cast doubt on his intentions. He also highlighted the fact that Suood's comments were outside the mandate of the commission, which was set up to investigate cold cases.
DJA recently created a commission to investigate Suood's claims.
Suood had proclaimed at a press conference on December 31, that gangs had influence over the Criminal Court to the point that they had a hand in appointing judges. He also accused judges of collaborating with gangs to cover up murder investigations, and to ensure that certain individuals were not convicted or sentenced.
The Criminal Court has refuted the accusations as an attempt to stir public unrest and warned that Suood's remarks constituted contempt of court.