Attorney General accuses Gahdhoo Court of misleading the public

The Attorney General’s Office has accused Gahdhoo Island Court of misleading the public, after the Court summoned the AG and threatened to hold him in contempt of court if he failed to appear.

The judge had requested the AG’s Office send a representative to appear in an ongoing trial of a case concerning the government.

In a statement, the AG’s Office said that the case Gahdhoo Island Court was referring to was a suit related to the Pension Administration Office, which had its own legal authority to both file suits and respond to legal summons. The government was not required to send representatives from the AG’s Office, it said.

The AG’s Office further claimed said that the Gahdhoo Island Court had not examined the suit in as much detail as it was obliged to do legally, and had mistakenly registered the suit as against the government rather than the Pension Administration Office.

According to the statement, the AG Office had not received any summons chit from the court besides the one sent yesterday, and that there was no reason for the Prosecutor General to take action against the AG.

The AG Office accused Gahdhoo Island Court of phoning media outlets and telling them that the Attorney General was in contempt of court.

Gahdhoo Island Court yesterday sent a summons chit to Attorney General Abdulla Muiz, requesting he produce himself to the island court.

According to the local media, the Gahdhoo Court Judge decided to summon Muiz after the AG’s Office did not send a representative from the AG in a case involving the office.

The judge claimed that the AG was guilty of contempt of court and requested the Prosecutor General to take action against him, and said that no exemption would be made if Muiz defied the summons.


2 thoughts on “Attorney General accuses Gahdhoo Court of misleading the public”

  1. Defying a summons does not amount to a contempt of court which is disobedience to the trial judge or breach of a rule of order in the court during a proceeding in which case the judge is at liberty, if not uner a duty, to punish the perpetrator. Defiance of a summons gives rise to a set of actions including a fine and forcing appearance under arrest. Ignorance of a summons is very common as it can be justified by a medical excuse or the penalty is very light.

    Above all, it is important to be sure of the island court's jurisdiction to hear a case against the Pensions Office located in an area outside the court's jurisdiction. The rule of thumb is that a case to be tried by a court within the jurisdiction of which the wrong was committed. If the Pensions Office did something it was in Male', not the island of the court's jurisdiction.

    Another general rule is for the state to be represented in a court by the Attorney General in a case against the state. However, if the statute makes a particular government department capable of being sued that department should be summoned in a case against it.

  2. Embarassed. Most of these island judges became so as favours for providing after midnight services to the visiting ministers of the previous regime. Not only do they lack any capacity to be a judge of any sort, but they are mostly dirty people who have long passed the line of decency. The complete opposite of what a judge should be.


Comments are closed.