The Supreme Court has today suspended former attorney general and high profile lawyer Husnu Suood from all courts, accusing him of violating lawyers regulation’s article 3.2[a][c].
Husnu Suood has shown the Supreme Court notice he has received to the media. It states that his comments regarding Supreme Court ruling number 42/SC-C/2013 constituted contempt of court.
The Supreme Court’s notice stated that it has asked the police to further investigate the case and that Suood is to be suspended from all the courts until this investigation is concluded.
Speaking to Minivan News today, Suood said that he believed this was related to the issue of Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed’s sex scandal case.
Suood suggested that the Supreme Court had suspended him because he is in the committee investigating the judges alleged appearance on the tape.
‘’[Former Youth Minister] Hassan Latheef and Hisan Haseen were also both lawyers accused of the same thing, but the court gave them advice and did not take action against them, but I am suspended so it is not fair,’’ Suood said.
He noted that the Supreme Court ruling in question was the verdict that invalidated the first round results of presidential election first round.
“They [Supreme Court] told me that the suspension was regarding a tweet I posted on twitter which says that I believe that the Supreme Court’s ruling was in violation to the constitution,’’ he said.
“I deny that I was the one who tweeted it, but even if it was me I do not think that expressing one’s opinion is a crime.’’
He also said that there was nothing in the case for the police to investigate.
‘’Now there is nothing I can do about it I just have to wait for the police to finish the investigation. But what is there to investigate,’’ he asked.
Previously, the Supreme Court suspended Suood for alleged contempt of court.
On September 28, Suood said the dispute regarding the presidential elections had left the country’s ongoing democratic transition in “limbo”. The former AG had represented the Elections Commission (EC) in the election annulment case before being thrown out for ‘contempt of court’.
“I am of the view that all institutions have a duty to uphold the constitution,” he said at the time, in response to the EC’s efforts to conclude presidential polls within the legally mandated – article 111 of the constitution.
“According to the constitution, the Supreme Court’s word is final only in respect of the interpretation of provisions of constitution and law. Here, the Supreme Court had not given an interpretation on Article 111. However, Judicature Act says that all state institutions must abide by the rulings made by courts.”