Humam’s confession used against Shan in Dr Afrasheem’s murder trial

The Criminal Court has today heard the prosecution’s evidence against H. Hikost Ali Shan in the case of MP Dr Afrasheem Ali’s murder.

Evidence was presented separately in support of four separate assertions: Shan’s involvement in conspiring to murder, his going to to Dr Afrasheem’s house with the intent of murder, attacking the victim with a sharp object, and Dr Afrasheem’s subsequent death from the attack.

The confession from the Hussein Human Ahmed – who was recently sentenced to death for Afrasheem’s murder – was used to back all four assertions. Humam later stated that the confession was obtained by the  Maldives Police Service through coercive means.

Other evidence presented include two confidential witnesses, audio recording and the script of a phone call, and Dr Afrasheem’s medical report and death certificate.

The defense also presented evidence at today’s hearing. Sun Online reported that the evidence was presented to prove that Shan was in ‘Jalapeno Restaurant’ from 9:00pm on October 1 2012 until 1:00am.

CNMreported that Shan’s Defense lawyer Abdulla Haseen had requested anonymity for defense witnesses stating that, due to the nature of the case, revealing their identities could endanger their lives. The request was granted by the judge.

According to ‘Haveeru‘, a request for leniency regarding Shan’s detention was rejected, with the judge stating that more importance would be given to finishing the case as soon as possible, and that previous scheduled hearings were canceled upon requests from the prosecutor general. The court has been extending Shan’s detention since late 2012.

The judge has  said that a hearing is likely to be scheduled within the next week, and that the case will be concluded as soon as statements of the witnesses are collected.

Dr Afrasheem Ali, a moderate Islamic scholar who was at the time representing Ungoofaaru constituency in the People’s Majlis, was found brutally murdered at his apartment building on the night of October 1 2012.

Shan, along with Humam, was charged with with the murder. In a hearing on May 6 2013, Humam denied the charge before changing his statement and confessing to the murder. He also implicated several others investigated for the murder. After nine days, however, Humam retracted the confession saying that it had been obtained by police through coercive means.

Other suspects mentioned in Humam’s confessional statement – a key piece of evidence on both his own and Shan’s cases – included a juvenile  identified as ‘Nangi, a Maldives National Defence Force officer Azleef Rauf, Abdulla ‘Jaa’ Javid (son-in-law of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik), Jaa’s brother Jana, and another person identified only as ‘Spy’.

In December 2012, then Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz described the murder as a “‘preplanned politically motivated act of terrorism carried out by politicians”.

He also said that both Humam and Shan belonged to a local gang who often carry out criminal acts for politicians and businessmen. Riyaz said that MVR14million was paid for the murder.

Politicians have similarly blamed the recent stabbing of MP Alhan Fahmy on criminal gangs with political paymasters.

Shan, who was arrested at the time of Riyaz’s press briefing, was only charged with the crime on  April 21 2013, where he requested to appoint a defense attorney for himself.

A hearing was held again on 5 May 2013, during which Shan’s defense refused to respond to charges until the findings of police investigations and statements of witnesses were presented. Agreeing to grant the request, the judge said that it was the prosecutor’s wish that it should not be presented.

Since May 2013 several scheduled hearings have been cancelled upon request from the prosecution, including one in July and December last year.


5 thoughts on “Humam’s confession used against Shan in Dr Afrasheem’s murder trial”

  1. It seems that once the gang's usefulness has run out, they're executing them to make sure they will not testify.

  2. As long as we have lawyers like MDP lawyer Haseen, murderers, rapists and gang-members will always roam free in our society, because they will know that there are lawyers like Haseen who will try to save them from their crimes (utilising knowlege of the law, loopholes in the law) even if the gang guys stab or kill someone.

    First Humam, and now Shan. In court Haseen tried to utilize various antics to save Humam, first by advising Humam to retract his confession, then tried to save him by trying to portray that Humam was mentally retarded. Haseen also tried to utilize the media to his advantage in defaming religious people by dressing up Humam as an Islamic person (so as to convey the message that Humam was part of a radical religious group when he committed the murder, however this getup was abandoned by Humam after some court sessions).

    Yet, being Humam's defence lawyer, Haseen must have been able to witness the most of the evidences against humam. Any moral person with half a consience would have realised throughout the trial and not tried to help murderers like Humam escape justice for his actions.

    How can MDP allow people like Haseen to assist murderers escape by using their lawyers certificate ? Is this what having a lawyers certificate means for MDP, utilizing them to save murderers and violent criminals ?

  3. @Citizen

    It appears that you your basis to judged and sentence not just Humam and Shan but also Haseen is based on your trust that in the Police. Case closed.

  4. @Citizen

    It appears that your basis to judge and sentence Humam and Shan but also Haseen is based on your trust in the Police. And Judge Abdulla Ghazee. Case closed.It would also peear that you do not believe people 'like" Humam should have legal representation. What is there to say?

  5. @ Fathun
    Your comments are totally off-topic. What does Judge Abdulla Ghazzee have to do about this case ? He isnt even part of this case.

    Shan's case is being presided over by Judge Abdulla Ali (Abdulla Ghazi's name is Abdulla Mohamed). Look it up in the news reports.

    And I am not talking about criminals not getting legal representation. I am talking about the stinky tactics adopted by MDP Lawyer Haseen, in trying to defend Humam. First he advised Humam to retract his confession. Then he tried to adopt the insanity defense in trying to prove that Humam was not in his proper state of Mind when Humam assaulted Afraasheem, or that Humam was seyku or psycho and thus not responsible for his actions.

    This is what you call lawyers utilising their knowledge of law to assist criminals escape. In Western Society, if a lawyer succeeds in the insanity defense, people who kill others are not sent to jail, but rather given medical treatment for their psychotic behaviour.

    Consider if the Insanity defence is adopted in the Maldives, then every gang kid who stabs someone, every thief who uses box-cutters to assault shop-keepers will be saved since technically they arent in their proper senses when they stab or blugeon someone to death. This is what Lawyer Haseen has advocated for and worked for, in the Humam case, that criminals like Humam should go free and seek medical treatment while Afraasheems family, his wife and kids should live in fear for Humam returning to Bludgeon them again.

    Thankfully the Judge saw through the acts of Lawyer Haseen in trying to save Humam. But once again, Haseen is back with a veangeance in trying to save the the second suspected killer of Afraasheem Shan. Funny coicidence that Haseen seems to get his kick out of defending murderers such as Humam and Shan right ?

    If MDP really was such an advocator of justice as their logo indicates (with the balanced scales), they would not allow lawyer Haseen in their party frontlines while he is con-currently defending suspected murderers.


Comments are closed.