Tag: criminal court

Fingerprints on confiscated pistol did not match Nazim’s, lawyers reveal

Fingerprints lifted from a pistol confiscated from Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim’s residence did not match the former defence minister’s print, Nazim’s legal team has revealed.

At a press briefing this afternoon, Nazim’s lawyer, Maumoon Hameed, explained that a police forensic report shared with defence lawyers stated that “latent prints” from the weapon did not match either Nazim or any of his family members.

“This proves that their evidence has no connection to Colonel Mohamed Nazim,” Hameed contended.

Nazim is currently on trial on charges of illegal weapons possession after police raided his apartment on January 18 and discovered a pistol and three bullets in a bedside drawer. Nazim was subsequently dismissed from the cabinet and arrested on additional charges of treason and terrorism.

Hameed noted that the fingerprints must belong to a “third party” but police have not made any attempt to identify the source of the prints during the investigation after receiving the forensic report on January 20.

Police hastily concluded the investigation on February 9 and forwarded the case to the Prosecutor General’s (PG) office, Hameed added.

Police have so far not responded to requests for an independent forensic examination of the evidence and other information relating to the case, he noted.

In a statement last month, police denied allegations made by Nazim’s legal team that police planted the pistol in the then-defence minister’s apartment to “frame” him, insisting that “nothing was done in violation of procedures, regulations and laws in the investigation of the case.”

Jumhooree Party MP Abdulla Riyaz, a former police commissioner and member of Nazim’s legal team, meanwhile questioned why police did not take video footage of the “forced entry” and midnight raid on January 18.

Riyaz also alleged that police did not take fingerprints from Nazim’s bedside drawer.

Riyaz urged President Abdulla Yameen to initiate an independent inquiry into the incident, contending that Nazim should be immediately released in light of the forensic evidence.

Riyaz reiterated that Nazim was being “framed” by political rivals to “destroy his political career,” adding that Nazim’s “unlawful arrest” would be investigated “some day” in the future.

Adhaalath Party Spokesperson Imran Zahir expressed concern over “obstacles to a free and fair trial” for Nazim due to several irregularities in the trial.

Zahir called on the PG office and Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to arrange for an open and public trial at a larger venue as only six members of the public were allowed into the Criminal Court to observe proceedings.

While Nazim has offered to bear the expense for a public trial at the Dharubaaruge Convention Center in Malé if the state was unable to do so, judges refused the request at a hearing earlier this week.

Anonymised witnesses

At this week’s hearing of Nazim’s trial on illegal weapons possession, lawyers objected to witness statements from 13 anonymised police officers submitted by the prosecution.

Noting that the PG office has redacted the names of the witnesses as well as other details, Hameed said defence lawyers could neither rebut nor impeach anonymous witnesses as it would be impossible to determine if the officers had in fact been present on the scene during the raid.

The state prosectors’ claim that anonymising the police witnesses to ensure their safety was not a reasonable justification without establishing that either Nazim, his family, or supporters have threatened or intimidated witnesses.

The justification was “laughable” as police have said the SWAT team officers involved in the raid were the most highly-trained in the force, he added.

Hameed questioned the officers’ training “if any of them are trembling with fear of Colonel Nazim, or his wife”, adding that it was more likely that they want to remain anonymous to “impede assessment” of their testimony.

Moreover, police and military officers have openly testified at former President Mohamed Nasheed’s trial, Hameed noted, adding that the opposition leader has the support of 45 percent of the electorate.

Hameed accused PG Muhthaz Muhsin of dereliction of duty and failing to protect Nazim’s fundamental rights.

At a High Court hearing on the legitimacy of the search warrant authorising the raid, Hameed said the PG office suggested that the Criminal Court should rule on the legality of the warrant during the trial and the High Court had concurred.

However, Hameed said prosecutors remained silent when Nazim’s lawyers raised the issue at this week’s Criminal Court hearing, after which  Judge Yoosuf Abdul Bari Yousuf had said the defence’s request had been noted and asked Hameed to speak on the evidence itself.

“This goes to show that the Prosecutor General does not want to afford these rights. It shows that the Prosecutor General is attempting to impede Colonel Mohamed Nazim from raising these legal points. We note our concern over this and appeal to [PG] not to act like this,” he said.

Related to this story:

Evidence against Nazim consists only of 13 anonymised police statements

Ex-Defence Minister calls for an open, public trial

No hope for fair trial, says former defense minister’s family

Nazim accused of conspiring with Villa group to harm state officials

Ex defense minister’s wife charged with illegal weapons possession

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed contests credibility of police and military witnesses in terrorism trial

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has contested the credibility of police and military officers as state witnesses in a terrorism trial over the military’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked 22 consecutive nights of violent anti-government demonstrations that culminated in a police and military mutiny on the morning of February 7, 2012, forcing President Nasheed to resign in what he subsequently called a “coup d’etat.”

The opposition leader, who has denied ordering the arrest of Judge Abdulla, contended the role of the police and military officers in his February 2012 ouster and Judge Abdulla’s arrest raised questions over their credibility.

Chief Inspectors of Police Ahmed Shakir and Mohamed Jamsheed testified at a third hearing last night, and claimed Nasheed —in a meeting with senior police officers on January 18— had said he would not allow Judge Abdulla within 100 feet of the courthouse.

The Criminal Court blocked Nasheed’s lawyers’ attempts to determine credibility of witnesses, at times ordering lawyers to focus on the content of the statement rather than the identity of the witness or the level of their involvement in the events of February 7.

Presiding Judge Abdulla Didi said judges would decide how much weight each witnesses’ statement would carry.

The three judge panel—Didi, Abdul Bari Yoosuf and Sujau Usman—also refused to revise its ruling to keep Nasheed in police custody until the end of the trial.

Credibility

Shakir told the court Nasheed in the January 2012 meeting had said Judge Abdulla was destroying the criminal justice system, and undermining the judicial watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) by disobeying its orders, and would bar him from within 100 meters of the courthouse.

A visibly nervous Jamsheed, however, first said he had also heard Nasheed say he would order the arrest of Judge Abdulla at the meeting with police officers.

When Nasheed’s lawyers pointed out the January 18 meeting had taken place after the judge’s arrest, Jamsheed said he had heard Nasheed say the judge must be isolated.

Lawyer Abdulla Shaairu then questioned Jamsheed on his whereabouts on February 7, whether he had been active inside or outside the police head quarters, and when he had received a promotion from Inspector to Chief Inspector.

When state prosecutors objected to the questions, Shaairu said the defence must determine if witnesses had any animosity towards Nasheed, given their role in the events leading up to his resignation.

Judge Yoosuf then directly asked Jamsheed whether he harboured any animosity towards Nasheed, and defence lawyers immediately objected to the bench’s questions, saying judges were “putting words in the witnesses’ mouths.”

Judge Didi dismissed the defence’s claim, saying judges regularly posed questions to witnesses.

Custody

Lawyer Ibrahim Riffath appealed to judges to release Nasheed from detention, stating the High Court had rejected the former president’s appeal of the Criminal Court’s decision to deny him bail.

Despite lawyer’s assurances to the contrary, the Criminal Court said they feared Nasheed may abscond from trial and rejected the request.

Nasheed was denied legal representation during his first hearing. He was arrested on February 22, and his trial under new charges of ‘terrorism’ began the next day.

Speaking to the press outside, lawyer Hisaan Hussain said the High Court threw the appeal out, claiming the Criminal Court’s detention ruling was in fact a court summons.

In a statement before the trial began, the lawyers expressed concern over inadequate time to prepare their case. In a March 2 hearing, the legal team requested 30 days to mount a credible defence, but judges gave them one day.

The Criminal Court, however, has argued Nasheed’s team has had case documents for three years, as the new terrorism charges are based on the same documents as a previous arbitrary detention charge, now withdrawn.

The statement also noted the judges’ refusal to withdraw from the bench on the March 2 hearing, despite their involvement on the scene during Judge Abdulla’s arrest and involvement as witnesses during the police and Human Rights Commission investigation.

The next hearing is to be held at 9pm tonight.

Related to this story

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Tholhath vowed not to release Judge Abdulla even if he were to be jailed for 30 years, says witness

Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu vowed not to release Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed even if he faced 30 years in jail as a consequence, a state witness testified at the then-defence minister’s trial on terrorism charges today.

Lieutenant Ali Ihusan, who served as Tholhath’s personal assistant, told the court that he heard the minister saying he would not release Judge Abdulla.

Following the arrest, Ihusan said Tholhath called Nasheed concerning orders to release Judge Abdulla from the High Court and was told to ignore and file the orders without the defence minister’s signature.

At the last hearing of his trial, Tholhath claimed the operation to arrest Judge Abdulla – dubbed ‘Liberty Shield’ – was initiated by Nasheed and carried out by then-Malé Area Commander Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi, currently opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for mid-Hithadhoo constituency.

Both Nasheed and Didi are also on trial on charges of terrorism along with then-Chief of Defence Forces Major General (Retired) Moosa Ali Jaleel – appointed President Yameen’s defence minister in January – and ex-Colonel Mohamed Ziyad.

Ihusan also said Didi was in charge of the operation and followed instructions from Tholhath and Nasheed.

However, Ihusan said he did not witness Tholhath issuing operational commands, noting that all orders were signed by Didi.

Operation Liberty Shield

Ihusan said he personally delivered two letters to Tholhath from then-Police Commissioner Ahmed Faseeh and then-Home Minister Hassan Afeef on January 16, requesting assistance from the military in arresting Judge Abdulla.

Tholhath asked Ihusan to provide copies to Jaleel, saying the letters “could save us one day,” Ihusan testified.

Ihusan also said there was a separate attachment with letters from Nasheed’s then-legal secretary, Hisaan Hussain, requesting an investigation of Judge Abdulla’s alleged obstruction of police.

Jaleel said at a hearing of his trial earlier this week that he participated in meetings between the heads of the police and military to discuss challenges posed to law enforcement and domestic security by the Criminal Court’s alleged release of dangerous criminals and refusal to grant search and arrest warrants to police.

Ihusan also revealed that a meeting with all senior military officers above the rank of colonel took place on January 15, 2012, a day before the chief judge’s arrest.

The state’s second witness, Colonel Abdul Raheem Abdul Latheef said he participated in the top level meeting, but could not recall any discussions on detaining the judge.

The meeting was about assisting police operations and investigations, he testified.

Latheef said he visited Judge Abdulla at Girifushi Island five to six times, accompanying visitors including members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM).

The colonel noted that Tholhath ordered him to be present at some of the meetings.

Latheef revealed that Tholhath himself visited the judge at the military training island, alongside several civilian visitors whom he could not recall.

Concluding tonight’s hearing, the judges said another hearing on the case would be scheduled tomorrow.

Chief of Defence Forces “Uninvolved”

At today’s hearing of former Chief of Defence Forces Jaleel’s trial, four state witnesses reportedly backed up the current defence minister’s claim that he was not involved in the judge’s arrest.

Both Ihusan and Colonel Latheef testified that Jaleel did not participate in meetings concerning the judge’s arrest and was not consulted by Tholhath.

Dr Ali Shahidh, a military doctor, Aishath Zeena, a psychologist, both of whom attended to the judge during his detention also testified to not receiving any orders from Jaleel.

While hearings of Jaleel, Tholhath, and Nasheed took place today, the Criminal Court did not schedule hearings for ex-Colonel Ziyad or MP Ibrahim Mohamed Didi’s trials.

Didi was hospitalised on Sunday night after complaining of chest pains. His family told Minivan News yesterday that the retired general would be flown overseas as soon as doctor’s gave approval.

All five defendants have pleaded not guilty to the terrorism charges. The charges were filed under Article 2(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1990, which criminalizes kidnappings, forced disappearances and abductions and carries a jail term of between 10 to 15 years.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked 22 consecutive nights of violent anti-government demonstrations that culminated in a police and military mutiny on the morning of February 7, 2012, forcing President Nasheed to resign in what he subsequently called a “coup d’etat.”

In January 2013, Tholhath told parliament’s Government Oversight Committee that Nasheed had not resigned “under duress.” However, Tholhath had previously claimed that Nasheed’s life was in danger on February 7, 2012 and that the former president had no choice but to resign.

Related to this story

Nasheed ordered Judge Abdulla’s arrest, says Tholhath

Judges Didi and Yoosuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Chief Judge “took entire criminal justice system in his fist”: Afeef

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed prosecution highlights “selective approach to justice,” says Amnesty International

The arrest and prosecution of former President Mohamed Nasheed on charges of terrorism highlights “a selective approach to justice in the Maldives,” Amnesty International has said.

The international human rights organisation noted in a press statement yesterday (March 3) that the court did not order an investigation of Nasheed’s alleged mistreatment by police on February 23.

“The court also denied him the right to be represented by his lawyer at the hearing, and rejected his request to receive medical treatment for injuries caused after police manhandled him outside the court premises,” reads the statement.

Following his arrest on February 22 ahead of a surprise terrorism trial, Nasheed appeared in court the next day using his tie as a makeshift sling after police manhandled and dragged the opposition leader into the court building.

Citing new regulations, the Criminal Court meanwhile informed the legal team on the day of the first hearing that the lawyers had to register at the court two days in advance despite being unaware of the trial until the former president’s arrest the previous day.

However, the government has maintained that due process was followed in Nasheed’s arrest and dismissed the incident outside the court building as “a stunt” pulled by the opposition leader in order to garner sympathy and support from the international community.

The government also insists that it has no role in the criminal proceedings as charges were raised by an independent Prosecutor General and tried through an independent judiciary.

Amnesty International meanwhile noted that Prosecutor General Muthaz Muhsin pressed charges against Nasheed under anti-terrorism laws after withdrawing previous charges filed under Article 81 of the penal code for illegally detaining a government employee who had not been convicted of a crime.

While the latter offence carries a jail term of up to three years, the charges of terrorism under “enforced disappearance” carries a jail sentence of between 10 to 15 years.

“A conviction would stop Mohamed Nasheed, a popular opposition leader, from contesting future presidential elections, with the next one due in 2018,” Amnesty observed.

Nasheed’s arrest warrant stated that he might not attend trial or go into hiding, Amnesty noted, and the Criminal Court at the first hearing ordered police to hold the former president in custody until the conclusion of the trial.

“Claims of his ill-treatment were substantiated by video footage, viewed by Amnesty International, which appear to show him being manhandled,” the statement continued.

“This was reminiscent of the events of February 2012 when Nasheed and his supporters were attacked by security forces. Eyewitnesses say he was dragged into the court in a degrading manner. He told the judge that he was in need of medical attention, but the judge refused his request.”

Echoing calls by the Commonwealth, UN, EU, and the UK, Amnesty urged the government to “ensure the due process of law, and that any judicial processes against Mohamed Nasheed conform to international fair trial standards.”

Amnesty also called for an independent and impartial investigation into Nasheed’s mistreatment in police custody as well as the judge’s refusal to allow the former president to seek medical treatment.

“Dozens of Nasheed’s supporters, including senior members and MPs of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) were attacked and subjected to brutal beatings at the time of the disputed ousting of Mohamed Nasheed from the presidency in February 2012,” Amnesty said, referring to a brutal crackdown on opposition supporters on February 8.

“Despite concerns expressed by Amnesty International, a National Commission of Inquiry investigating the circumstances of Nasheed’s ousting, and the Maldives Human Rights Commission, no one has yet been brought to justice for those attacks. Nasheed’s arrest stands in contrast to government inaction in these cases and undermines its stated claim that his arrest is to uphold the rule of law.”

Related to this story

EU, UN join international chorus of concern over Nasheed arrest, terrorism trial

Foreign Minister Dunya slams Canada, Commonwealth statements on Nasheed prosecution

Commonwealth, Canada express concern over denial of legal representation for former President Nasheed

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Five police brutality cases from February 2012 ongoing at court, AG tells Majlis

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed ordered Judge Abdulla’s arrest, says Tholhath

Former President Mohamed Nasheed ordered the military to detain Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012, former Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfaanu told the Criminal Court last night.

At last night’s hearing of his trial on terrorism charges, Tholhath said the operation to arrest Judge Abdulla – dubbed ‘Liberty Shield’ – was initiated by Nasheed and carried out by then-Malé Area Commander Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi, currently an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for mid-Hithadhoo constituency.

According to trial observers from the Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN), state prosecutors noted that Tholhath had confessed to initiating Operation Liberty Shield during a previous trial at the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court.

Asked whether Nasheed directly gave the order to Didi – bypassing the defence minister – Tholhath’s lawyer said details of the orders would be explained after the state presents its witnesses.

Tholhath insisted that Nasheed had ordered the judge’s detention on Girifushi Island.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest triggered a police and military mutiny forcing Nasheed’s resignation on February 7, 2012.

In January 2013, Tholhath told parliament’s Government Oversight Committee that Nasheed had not resigned “under duress” in a a coup d’etat. However, Tholhath had previously claimed that Nasheed’s life was in danger on February 7, 2012 and that the former president had no choice but to resign.

During the 2013 presidential campaign, Tholhath campaigned for Jumhooree Party Leader Gasim Ibrahim and later backed eventual winner Abdulla Yameen.

Terrorism trials

At last night’s hearing, Tholhath’s lawyer asked state prosecutors to clarify which offence the former minister was being charged with under Article 2 of the anti-terrorism law.

When the prosecutor explained that the offence was “enforced disappearance,” the lawyer asked whether the state has decided that the highest authority of the military gave orders that amounted to terrorism, and whether the state was suggesting the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) was a “terrorist organisation” if soldiers enforce their commanders’ orders.

The lawyer also asked why soldiers involved in the operation were not being charged as accomplices.

In reply, State Prosecutor Abdulla Rabiu said senior officers of the military “used the institution as a veil to commit this atrocity,” noting that senior officials would have had the opportunity to seek legal advice.

The defence lawyer said then-Home Minister Hassan Afeef informed Tholhath that the chief judge was a threat to national security as he was blocking corruption investigations, releasing dangerous criminals, and undermining the criminal justice system.

The lawyer also contended that the Human Rights Commission of Maldives’ (HRCM) investigation could not be admissible as the commission was not legally authorised to investigate acts of terrorism.

However, the prosecutor insisted that the HRCM Act confers powers on the commission to investigate terrorism.

After the judges ruled that the procedural issues were not an impediment to continuing the trial, both the prosecution and defence then submitted a list of evidentiary documents and witnesses, including senior officers of the police and military.

Adjourning the hearing, Judge Abdulla Didi said testimony from state witnesses would be heard at the next trial date.

At last night’s hearing of Nasheed’s trial, Judge Didi and Judge Abdul Bari Yoosuf ruled that there was no conflict of interest for the pair to preside over the trial, despite having testified as witnesses in the case’s investigation.

Along with Nasheed, Tholhath, and Didi, former Chief of Defence Forces Major General (Retired) Moosa Ali Jaleel and Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Ziyad are also on trial on terrorism charges over the chief judge’s arrest.

All five defendants have pleaded not guilty to the terrorism charges. The charges were filed under Article 2(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1990, which criminalizes kidnappings, forced disappearances and abductions and carries a jail term of between 10 to 15 years.

At a hearing earlier this week, Jaleel denied any involvement in the judge’s arrest, claiming he neither received nor given any orders to take the chief judge into military custody.

Didi was meanwhile hospitalised on Sunday night after complaining of chest pains. His family told Minivan News today that the retired general would be flown overseas as soon as doctor’s give approval.

Related to this story

Judges Didi and Yousuf refuse to step down from Nasheed’s terrorism trial

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Chief Judge “took entire criminal justice system in his fist”: Afeef

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former chief of defence forces denies involvement in Judge Abdulla arrest

Defence Minister Major General (Retired) Moosa Ali Jaleel has denied any involvement as then-chief of defence forces in the military’s controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

At the second hearing of his trial on terrorism charges last night, Jaleel repeatedly said he neither received nor gave any orders to arrest the judge.

Prior to the judge’s arrest on January 16, then-Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim Kaleyfan took over many responsibilities of the highest-ranking commander, Jaleel explained, which he contended was against the Armed Forces Act.

Jaleel had told parliament’s Government Oversight Committee in January 2013 that Tholhath usurped the army chief’s powers through a strategic defence directive (SDD), which required area commanders to answer directly to the defence minister.

Jaleel’s lawyer, Adam Asif, said Tholhath informed the chief of defence forces of the operation – dubbed ‘Liberty Shield’ – to take the judge into military custody on the night of January 16, adding that Jaleel had told the defence minister that it should not be done without a Supreme Court order.

Tholhath and then-Malé Area Commander Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi – currently opposition Maldivian Democratic Party MP for mid-Hithadhoo constituency – was in charge of the operation, Jaleel said.

The pair are also on trial on terrorism charges along with former President Mohamed Nasheed and Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Ziyad.

All five defendants have pleaded not guilty to the terrorism charges. The charges were filed under Article 2(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1990, which criminalises kidnappings and abductions and carries a jail term of between 10 to 15 years.

President Abdulla Yameen appointed Jaleel to the cabinet on January 20 shortly after sacking former Defence Minister Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim. Jaleel joined the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives in January 2014 and was subsequently appointed Maldives Ambassador to Pakistan.

At last night’s hearing, Jaleel repeatedly said the chief of defence forces had been reduced to a “ceremonial” official by Tholhath and that he was not consulted over the judge’s arrest.

However, Jaleel said he participated in meetings between the heads of the police and military to discuss challenges posed to law enforcement and domestic security by the Criminal Court’s alleged release of dangerous criminals and refusal to grant search and arrest warrants to police.

Jaleel said he also attended a meeting to discuss the issue with the Supreme Court bench.

However, Jaleel stressed that arresting the chief judge of the Criminal Court was not raised during any of the meetings.

In a back and forth between the prosecution and defence, State Prosecutor Aishath Fazna questioned whether the chief of defence forces was fulfilling his responsibility if he had been unaware of the impending arrest of the judge.

State prosecutors then submitted evidence against Jaleel, including a video of Judge Abdulla’s arrest and audio clips of public remarks by Nasheed at political rallies.

Senior officers of the police and military as well as former Police Commissioner Ahmed Faseeh were named among state witnesses, whom prosecutors asked to be summoned to court.

Jaleel also named six witnesses, including senior police officers and soldiers involved in the operation to arrest the chief judge, who he said would testify to the army chief’s non-involvement.

Adjourning the hearing, Judge Abdulla Didi said testimony of state witnesses would be heard at the next trial date.

Along with Judge Didi, the three-judge panel of the Criminal Court is comprised of Judge Abdul Bari Yousuf and Judge Shujau Usman.

Meanwhile, at hearings of the trials of MP Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Ziyad – conducted separately last night – Judge Didi gave the pair three additional days to prepare their defence.

While Nasheed’s lawyers have named Judges Didi and Bari as witnesses – noting the pair’s presence at Judge Abdulla’s residence during the arrest – Judge Didi asked the defence lawyer not to name any judge on the bench as witnesses.

Judge Didi said the bench would not accept any of the judges as witnesses.

The third hearing of Nasheed’s trial has been scheduled for 8:00pm tomorrow night (March 2).

Related to this story

Nasheed’s lawyers name Judges Didi, Yousuf as witnesses, request their withdrawal from terrorism trial

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Chief Judge “took entire criminal justice system in his fist”: Afeef

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court throws out Nazim’s search warrant appeal

The High Court today declined to rule on an appeal lodged by former Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim requesting the appellate court overturn a Criminal Court issued search warrant.

The police used the warrant to raid Nazim’s apartment in the early hours of January 18, and announced they had discovered a pistol and bullets in a bedside drawer.

Nazim was subsequently accused of plotting to overthrow the government and plans to harm senior government officials. The police arrested him on February 10.

The High Court today said a ruling on the search warrant at this time might effect an ongoing criminal trial against Nazim over illegal weapons possession, but said Nazim’s legal team could appeal the warrant at the Criminal Court.

The former defense minister has claimed the weapons were planted in order to frame him.

At the first hearing of Nazim’s criminal trial yesterday, state prosecutors accused the former defense minister of conspiring with the Villa Group – owned by opposition Jumhooree Party leader Gasim Ibrahim – to harm senior state officials.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed denies ordering Judge Abdulla arrest, granted three days to answer charges

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has denied ordering Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed’s arrest at the second hearing of a surprise terrorism trial.

“As President of the Maldives, I did not order any harm unto or the arrest of any citizen,” the opposition leader told the Criminal Court tonight.

“These are politically motivated charges, an atrocity planned and carried out by the government,” he said.

Nasheed said he had no hope of a free and fair trial, noting that the Prosecutor General (PG) Muhthaz Muhsin and two of the three judges presiding over his trial were among the state’s witnesses.

Addressing Judges Abdulla Didi and Abdul Bari Yoosuf, Nasheed said: “You saw this very closely. You are his [Judge Abdulla’s] colleagues. I do not see how you, by the Islamic Shari’ah, Maldivian laws and international laws, could deliver an impartial verdict.”

Tonight’s hearing ended with the Criminal Court granting Nasheed three extra days to prepare his defence, after his lawyers claimed they had not had adequate time to research and review the state’s charges and evidence.

The opposition leader was arrested on Sunday ahead of a surprise hearing on terrorism the next day. The Criminal Court had denied him legal representation at the time and ruled he be kept in police custody until the end of the trial.

“Politically motivated atrocity”

Before the hearing began, Nasheed and his four-member legal team complained over seating arrangements which separated the former president from his lawyers. The former president requested to be seated among his lawyers to be allowed to confer with them easily.

The three-judge panel refused to change the setup, but did allow lawyers to approach the defence stand and consult with Nasheed throughout the trial.

In his opening remarks, Nasheed pointed out PG Muhthaz Muhsin, a former Criminal Court judge, was Judge Abdulla Mohamed’s colleague. Muhsin had withdrawn lesser charges submitted by former  PG Ahmed Muizz and asked Nasheed be prosecuted under a harsher terror law.

Nasheed is now being tried under the 1990 Anti Terrorism Act, which considers abductions, kidnapping and attempts to do so as acts of terror.

Muhsin’s decision to re-prosecute demonstrated the political nature of the charges, Nasheed contended.

The PG raises criminal charges on behalf of the public to ensure public safety, Nasheed continued, stating: “Public support for me during the presidential elections, 49 percent, demonstrate they do not view me as a terrorist.”

“My concern is not on damages I would be caused, but on the dark shadow [this trial] would cast on Maldives’ future,” he added.

Noting the Criminal Court had denied him legal representation at a first hearing, and ruled he be held in pre-trial detention, Nasheed said: “What I’m seeing is that you are unable to or face great difficulty in ensuring a fair trial.”

The three judges did not respond to Nasheed’s statements, and upon his request asked lawyers to proceed with his defence.

Lawyer Abdulla Shaairu then held up a thick sheaf of papers and said the legal team had not had adequate time to prepare a defence. In the three days granted previously, lawyers were only able to skim through documents and needed more time to clarify the exact nature of charges, he added.

Judge Didi agreed, and adjourned the hearing. Judge Sujau Usman is the third member of the Criminal Court panel.

In a statement earlier this week, PG Muhsin said there were no legal obstacles to pressing terrorism charges. Meanwhile, the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) insists it has no influence over the independent PG and independent courts.

Nasheed’s trial demonstrates “no one is above the law,” PPM MPs have claimed.

Judge Mohamed’s detention in January 2012 triggered three weeks of nightly protests, culminating in a police and army mutiny forcing Nasheed’s resignation.

Manhandled

Nasheed appeared in court on Monday with his arm in a makeshift sling after a scuffle in which police manhandled the former president as he attempted to speak with journalists outside the Justice Building.

The EU, UN, Commonwealth, US, India, Canada and UK have expressed concern over Nasheed’s arrest, subsequent terrorism charges and denial of legal representation.

Current Defence Minister Moosa Ali Jaleel, then-Defence Minister Tholhath Ibrahim, MDP MP and retired Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and retired Colonel Mohamed Ziyad are also facing terrorism charges over the judge’s detention.

All have pleaded not guilty to charges.

On Tuesday, Nasheed’s lawyers named presiding Judges Abdulla Didi and Abdul Bari Yoosuf as witnesses, noting the pair had been present with Judge Mohamed at the time of his arrest, and requested they withdraw from the bench.

Nasheed’s trial comes shortly after the MDP and former ruling coalition partner Jumhooree Party allied against what they call President Abdulla Yameen’s repeated violations of the constitution.

The allied opposition parties have planned mass demonstrations for tomorrow (February 27) and have pledged to topple Yameen’s administration.

Related to this story

Former President Nasheed arrives in court with arm in makeshift sling

Nasheed denied right to appoint lawyer and appeal “arbitrary” arrest warrant, contend lawyers

Police arrest former President Mohamed Nasheed ahead of terrorism trial

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

No hope for fair trial, says former defense minister’s family

Former Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim’s family has urged the international community to step up pressure on President Abdulla Yameen’s administration, claiming, “there is no hope that Nazim can expect a fair trial” due to a “notoriously politicised judiciary.”

Nazim appeared in court yesterday on charges of illegal weapons possession, allegedly discovered in a bedside drawer during a midnight police raid on January 18.

The former minister was arrested on February 10 on charges of treason and terrorism and has been placed in police custody pending the outcome of a trial.

“Nazim never expected to be where he is now. But he has fallen foul of a political conspiracy, one in which powerful forces within the Maldivian government have sought to destroy him and thus prevent him from challenging for the leadership of the ruling party,” Nazim’s family explained in a letter to the international community.

The letter claimed the pistol and bullets confiscated from Nazim’s apartment had in fact been planted by the police and described charges against the former minister as baseless and politically motivated.

The Maldives Police Services have denied the allegations, insisting police had shown professionalism during the midnight raid.

“As President Yameen’s governing coalition collapses, and amid nightly protests against his rule, the president has resorted to increasingly desperate tactics to remove his political opponents and cling to power,” the statement added.

It went on to note former President Mohamed Nasheed’s sudden terrorism trial and the government’s alleged targeting of opposition Jumhooree Party leader Gasim Ibrahim’s businesses as examples.

The government has maintained the arrests and charges against Nazim and Nasheed demonstrate “no one is above the law,” and say charges were initiated by an independent Prosecutor General and tried through an impartial judiciary.

Nazim’s lawyer, Maumoon Hameed, yesterday expressed concern over state prosecutors’ filing of confidential documents as evidence against Nazim.

“This is a major obstacle in ensuring a fair trial for Nazim,” he said.

Nazim’s wife, Afaaf Abdul Majeed, had been charged with the possession of illegal weapons, but state prosecutors withdrew charges claiming the documents on a confiscated pen drive brought new information to light.

According to Hameed, Afaaf had not received any indication she was under suspicion prior to the court summons sent on February 23, two days before the first hearing.

In withdrawing charges, lawyers claimed documents in a pen drive confiscated from Nazim’s home indicate he was plotting to harm senior government officials with the financial backing of Villa Group, a company owned by Gasim.

On February 24, Nazim filed civil charges against PG Muhthaz Muhsin, alleging the office had failed to protect the former minister’s constitutional rights.

Nazim’s lawyers on February 12 filed defamation charges at the Civil Court and a complaint at the Police Integrity Commission against the Commissioner of Police Hussein Waheed for spreading false information.

Waheed at a press conference following Nazim’s arrest said the police had found an improvised explosive device in a bag confiscated from his apartment.

But lawyers say a police document detailing items confiscated from Nazim’s apartment right after the raid did not list an IED.

Police claim the IED was discovered on further forensic analysis of contents in the black bag. Nazim’s lawyers have requested for an independent forensic test of items on their own expense.

Related to this story

Nazim accused of conspiring with Villa group to harm state officials

Ex defense minister’s wife charged with illegal weapons possession

Nazim remains in custody as High Court rejects appeal

Former Defence Minister Nazim remanded for 15 days

Police deny framing Nazim as former Commissioner alleges politicisation

No forensic evidence against Nazim, says legal team

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)