Supreme Court continues collecting statements from Jumhooree Party witnesses

The Supreme Court today (September 23) continued taking statements from witnesses produced by the Jumhoree Party (JP), in the party’s ongoing bid to annul the first round of presidential elections over allegations of discrepancies and irregularities in the voting process.

The Supreme Court commenced direct examination and cross examination of witnesses during last Sunday’s hearings, during which three witnesses produced by the JP gave their testimonies to the court.

During the hearing Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz announced that the JP had requested to produce 20 witnesses to give evidence in court to support their case.

Due to a request made by the JP’s lawyers on Sunday, the statements of all witnesses were taken with special arrangements made to ensure their anonymity. The witnesses gave their statements in a separate room and their voices were distorted to protect their identities.

The first witness produced by the JP told the court that his friend working as an election official had informed him that his younger sister – who lived in Malaysia and never went to vote –  had her name on the list in Male’ and which showed that she had voted.

During re-examination, EC Lawyer Husnu Al Suood asked the witness whether he knew which ballot box in which the alleged discrepancy occurred, but he refused to answer and told the judge that he would give the details “in writing” to the court.

When Hisaan Hussain, the lawyer from the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) which has intervened in the case, questioned the witness as to whether he was affiliated with any political party, the witness, despite initial reluctance, said that he supported the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

The second witness, a female, told the court that she was not able to vote in the elections because EC officials had told her that her National Identity Card (NIC) number did not match with the one that was on the commission’s database. The witness reiterated that despite turning up with an official document from the Department of National Registration, EC officials refused to allow her to vote.

The third witness, a police officer who was on security duty during the time of polling, told the court that he had witnessed elections officials packing up all the paperwork on the ballot counting table – including the original ballot papers – and putting them into a cardboard box, after the officials announced the provisional results of that box.

The police officer said that once the officials had packed the box, they took it away in two taxis. He said that although he had expected them to head to Dharubaaruge, the officials instead went to the secretariat of the commission located in Maafannu.

When the EC lawyer asked the witness what his duty of the day had been, the police officer told the court that he was ordered to follow the EC officials who had left in the taxi, but did not reveal who had given him this order.

When the MDP lawyer questioned the officer as to what distance had he been from the ballot box, the officer said that he was just approximately 15 feet away from the ballot box, 85 feet closer than the 100 foot distance police officers are regulated to maintain from the box.

A fourth witness, a female, told the court that when she contacted the EC to re-register for the run-off election, the EC officials had told her that she had already been registered to vote in Male even though she claimed that she had neither re-registered of voted during the first round of elections. She also contested that the EC official had told her that she had voted in Male.

Another witness told the court that when he had gone to vote, the list which the EC officials working at the ballot box were using showed his name being highlighted as if he had already voted in the election.

However, the witness claimed that following protests and complaints, the officials later allowed him to vote after manually writing down his name and details on the printed list.

During today’s hearing the court was not able to collect statements from two witnesses whose statements had to be collected through telephone.

Each of the two witnesses had appeared in their respective island’s Magistrate Courts to give their witness through telephone. However due to poor reception the court was not able to obtain their statements.

The Chief Justice said that testimonies of the two witnesses would be taken in the next hearing.

After the collection of evidences by witnesses, the JP Lawyer Dr Hassan Saeed requested the Supreme Court give it the party the opportunity to present two new documents of evidence, which included a new list of fraudulent voters and a copy of the leaked police intelligence report currently being circulated around social media.

In response to the request, the judges said that the leaked document could only be accepted after discussing the matter with the other judges. However Deputy Solicitor General Ahmed Usham – who was representing the state, which had also intervened into the case – requested the court for permission to present the original intelligence report to the court, citing that the one that had been leaked on social media had been a part of the original report.

In concluding the hearing today, Chief Justice Faiz said that during the next hearing that the court would try to obtain the statements of the two witnesses, whose statements the court was not able to collect today.

Faiz did not state the date when the next hearing would be scheduled.


6 thoughts on “Supreme Court continues collecting statements from Jumhooree Party witnesses”

  1. The plot gets thicker & thicker. Why is the Election Commission lawyer so passive. He needs to shoot down these witnesses. Come on! The Election Commissioner is above board & he said that he was 100% certain the vote was above board.

    Further the cop was 15 yards away! He admits it under cross examination. Yet ALL the observers avow that all went to plan.

    Now we have a blinking leaked report and the PG rep saying that leaked report was the tip of the ice berg.

    So might one ask WHO IS LIEING TO WHOM? One way or the other the future is bleak. God help us!

  2. Simples. It's easy to bribe and bring forward witnesses. They can fabricate any sort of story that was fed to them by Saeed and Gasim.

    The election data is the central source for corroboration. Every single one of these witness statements need to be verified against the voting records. If there's a discrepancy, then the witnesses are lying and should be sentenced appropriately for contempt of court (at a minimum).

    For example, if I claim that someone else voted in my name, then that cannot be verified. After all, the election record will show that I voted. It doesn't contain pictures of me when I voted! These sort of statements are baseless and useless.

    I hope the judges sitting on that bench are capable of differentiating fabrications from truth. I'm not hopeful though.

  3. I don't think judges are stupid and neither those witnesses are stupid.

    I believe that judges will do necessary things to prove the witness comments .

    Even Fuwad himself had agreed that there are hundreds of people with forged ID cards and tier names were in the election list ? What witness we required for that.

    MDP had rigged those votes in an intelligent way . It further proves what action they have done today in the parliament also.

    Once again MDP had shooter on thier own foot by adopting a special motion today completely against the regulation and norms of the parliament.

    This again will be an example for others to exercise in future like what JP and PPM Mps have been doing in the parliament floor yesterday and today. This kind of monkey behavior for first introduced by MDP and nothing wad done about that and now every one is doing the same.

    This country is in big crisis and that was created by Nadheed for his personal benefit and interest.

  4. What we've predicted has just happened. The disgraced Supreme Court has ordered the postponement of the 2nd round. Let's think about the legitimacy of this in light of:

    (1) Burumaa Gasim was until a few weeks a member of the JSC.
    (2) Burumaa Gasim has continued to defend the disgraced fornicator Ali Hameed who continues to sit on the Supreme Court bench.
    (3) The evidence given to the Supreme Court so far by JP has been circumspect at best with regard to the 1st round. Anyone can go around claiming they never voted and someone else voted on their behalf!

    This is a dark day in the democratic life of the Maldives. Even darker days lie ahead.

  5. The court listening to one side of the case and collecting statements of witnesses of the same side is a new height in Justice!
    Heavens help us!

  6. It's not the business of the court to collect evidence that has to be done by the police. Who is fooling who? It's surprising that the chief judge says nothing and died not allow the MDP lawyers to talk. You people also will die one day. You will be punished for dishonoring the rights of the people of this Nation. We have heard of the way your judges talked of MDP members. Shame on you. And that Hameed guy dismiss him.


Comments are closed.