“I said it only because I was hopeful”: Umar Naseer responds to Supreme Court allegations of sub judice

Former Deputy Leader Umar Naseer has issued a statement following a complaint from the Supreme Court that he was prejudicing a case under judgement by publicly claiming he was certain he would win.

In his press release, Umar said that his comments were “only made because I was hopeful of winning” a suit filed against Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed Musthafa.

Umar made his remarks about the suit against Musthafa last weekend during an oppistion rally led by main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP)’s Z-faction, led by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Speaking at the rally, Umar said that he was confident that the MDP would lose two seats in parliament very soon – one was to be MP Musthafa’s seat following the ruling, and the second was to be MP Hassan Adil’s seat. Adil is currently on trial in the Criminal Court for allegedly molesting a minor.

‘’One will be Musthafa. You will remember there is a suit filed against him in Supreme Court, a suit I filed. The suit has almost reached a verdict, and all statements have been signed. I’m sure Musthafa will lose his seat. The next one is [alleged] child molester Ahil [MDP MP Hassan Adil],’’ Umar said during the rally.

The day after Umar Naseer’s announcement, the Supreme Court said that ‘’predicting how the court may rule on a certain case obstructs the administration of justice, and added that the court had “authority to stop anything that might influence the judiciary.”

The court also warned that commenting on cases on sub judice was an offence under the Contempt of Court Act, the constitution and other relevant laws.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

6 thoughts on ““I said it only because I was hopeful”: Umar Naseer responds to Supreme Court allegations of sub judice”

  1. As big a clown as Umar Naseer is, the Supreme Court's allegation that he violated the sub judice rule in this instance makes the court itself a bigger joke.

    As most modern democracies with the common law legal system understand it, the sub judice rule is enforced when there is a risk that the comments made could influence a jury - NOT judges sitting alone.

    Judges are accepted and expected to be professionally and ethically strong enough - unlike 12 ordinary people in a jury - to be able to resist being influenced by what they hear from the public domain.

    Unlike a jury of peers, when the Supreme Court bench sits to deliberate on a case, we expect it to be able to disregard whatever new sound bite delivered most recently by a limelight-seeking politician.

    This is the meaning of an independent judiciary.

    By accusing Umar Naseer of violating the sub judice rule with his prediction of a case's outcome, the Supreme Court is admitting that it sees itself as easily influenced and unable to reach a verdict on evidence alone.

    Emperor’s new clothes and all that.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  2. Either Umar should be sent to a language school or to a mental school. We need to get a clear message from this guy. We clearly understood the language he used and it means the decisions are made by judges affiliated with his faction and he can control their decisions.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comments are closed.