SC mandates holding passports of accused in major criminal cases

The Supreme Court has decreed that immigration authorities must put on hold the passport of an accused individual after the filing of a chargesheet in significant criminal cases.

The decision came in the context of Sealife Global owner Ahmed Moosa (Ammati) being permitted to depart the country, a move contested by the apex court, which overturned the trial court's decision to release Ammati's passport.

Justice Husnu Suood, part of the bench, highlighted the seriousness of filing a chargesheet, stating that the departure of an accused in a criminal case could impede justice administration, underlining the state's responsibility to prevent such incidents.

“Measures should be implemented by the state to prevent a recurrence of such incidents”, the Judge emphasized.

"The duty falls upon Maldives Immigration to blacklist individuals, ensuring their restriction from leaving the country as directed by the court, particularly after filing a charge sheet in a criminal case specified in Section 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure," stated the ruling.

The Judge said the ban on an accused in a major criminal case should be maintained till the appeal proceedings are concluded. "In a major criminal case, an accused should only be allowed to leave the country for medical treatment on the basis of a doctor's opinion that the treatment is not available in the Maldives," it said.

"Upon obtaining clarification from the prosecutor regarding this stance, it becomes a requirement to ensure the individual's return to the Maldives upon completion of medical treatment. Consequently, the court holds the authority to impose a condition, such as a bank guarantee or bond, equivalent to the monetary value specified in the charge sheet," expressed Justice Suood's opinion.

The Judge emphasized that the condition specified in this manner must be one that is accepted by the Prosecutor General's Office. He stated that the court, following the procedures outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, should only permit individuals accused of a severe criminal offense to travel abroad for reasons other than medical treatment if there is no objection from the prosecution.

Justice Mahaz Ali endorsed Justice Husnu Suood's opinion. However, Justice Aisha Shujune, also on the bench, did not share this perspective. Justice Shujune expressed the view that Ammati's passport had been incorrectly issued.

In the preceding month, the Criminal Court granted permission for Ammati to travel for medical treatment after facing multiple fraud charges related to Sealife's alleged misappropriation of funds for a residential construction project in Hulhumalé.

Challenging the decision, the state sought a review in the High Court, which affirmed the correctness of the trial court's ruling last month. Consequently, the state has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Ammati's legal counsel informed the court earlier that, despite being permitted to leave for medical treatment, certain restrictions imposed by the state prevented him from entering Sri Lanka.