Tag: Judge Abdulla Didi

Former President Nasheed appears in court with arm in makeshift sling

A visibly injured former President Mohamed Nasheed appeared at the Criminal Court today for the first hearing of his sudden terrorism trial.

Nasheed limped inside the courtroom at 4:35pm, nursing what appeared to be a broken arm and using his tie as a makeshift sling.

There were no buttons on his shirt, his glasses were missing, and he had a T-shirt wrapped around his body.

Nasheed appeared at court without legal representation as the Criminal Court today refused to register any of the five lawyers on his legal team.

Ignoring requests for medical attention, presiding Judge Abdulla Didi asked the state prosecutors to present charges.

The former president is being charged with terrorism for his administration’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012.

Didi gave Nasheed three days to appoint a lawyer and answer charges, and ordered the opposition leader be held in police custody until the trial ended.

Nasheed has now been taken to Dhoonidhoo Island Detention Center, but lawyers said he may be taken to ADK Hospital for treatment. Supporters are awaiting him outside the hospital on Sosun Magu.

He was arrested yesterday at 3:00pm from his residence Yagoothuge.

Court proceedings

Nasheed arrived at the Justice Building at 4:00pm under a heavy Specialist Operations (SO) police guard. Journalists attempted to question the opposition leader, but SO officers surrounded and manhandled Nasheed, shoving journalists and cameramen aside.

Nasheed’s shirt was torn in the process and he fell to the ground.

He repeatedly urged police officers to allow him to walk inside the court building, but SO officers dragged the former president inside the building by force.

Court officials locked the door afterwards.

When a three judge bench commenced the trial at 4:40pm, Nasheed stood up and said: “Honourable judge, I have been shoved to the ground and my arm has been broken. I want to see a doctor. As you can clearly see, I am hurt.”

He added: “I’ve been waiting for a while now. Take me to a doctor and then you can issue your verdict.”

However, Judge Abdulla Didi – presiding over the case along with Abdul Bari Yoosuf and Sujau Usman – said the judges had received reports suggesting that Nasheed had staged a fall, caused his own injuries and refused to enter the court building.

Nasheed replied: “What evidence are you basing this on? Check the videos.”

State Prosecutor Abdulla Rabiu said Nasheed was charged under Article 2(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and that as commander-in-chief the former president was responsible for the military’s detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Asked to respond to the charges, Nasheed repeated his request for medical attention and asked to be allowed to appoint a lawyer.

When Judge Didi said Nasheed had allegedly refused to enter the court, he replied: “I’ve never given an excuse not to enter a courtroom.”

Nasheed also noted that he had been kept in detention for more than 24 hours without being brought before a judge.

State Prosecutor Aishath Fazna Ahmed then read out a letter from the Prosecutor General requesting an order to hold Nasheed in remand detention on the grounds that his previous conduct during proceedings at the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court suggested the former president might abscond from trial.

Fazna also cited a police intelligence report to support the request, and requested for a continuous trial.

Judge Didi gave Nasheed three days to appoint a lawyer and answer the charges of terrorism and ordered police to hold the former president in pre-trial detention until the conclusion of the trial.

Didi said the Criminal Court would order the police to provide the former president with medical care.

Judge Abdulla Mohamed has meanwhile taken a leave of absence until the end of the trial.

Outside, the police had cordoned off the area encompassing the Criminal Court, the adjoining Supreme Court and the Vice President’s residence. Supporters had been gathering behind barricades from 3:00pm onwards.

Photo: Nasheed manhandled by police outside the Justice Building

Manhandling

Condemning the police’s unlawful use of force and brutality, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives has called on the police to provide Nasheed with medical attention immediately and ensure he is afforded all constitutional rights.

In response to a question today, Syed Akbaruddin, official spokesperson at the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, expressed concern over the developments in the Maldives, “including the arrest and manhandling of former President Nasheed.”

“We urge all concerned to calm the situation and resolve their differences within the constitutional and legal framework of Maldives.​

“The Government of India reiterates its commitment to supporting the people and the Government of Maldives in their quest for peace, development, prosperity and democracy,” the spokesperson said.

The Maldivian Democracy Network, meanwhile, said Nasheed had been denied constitutional rights, including the right to legal counsel and appeal.

In a statement detailing several alleged irregularities, the human rights group called on the Maldives Police Services and the Prosecutor General to work within the ambit of the Constitution.

“We urge the authorities to release Nasheed and all peaceful protesters as we are of the view that these persons have been detained unlawfully without adherence to due process,” the statement read.

Photo: Protesters outside ADK Hospital


Related to this story

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

Police arrest former President Mohamed Nasheed ahead of terrorism trial

MDP, JP rally supporters ahead of mass February 27 march

Two JP MPs and 15 councilors defect to PPM

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Shahum found not guilty of murdering Ahusan Basheer

The Criminal Court on Thursday (November 20) found Ibrahim Shahum not guilty of murdering 21-year-old Ahusan Basheer in March 2011.

Ibrahim Shimaz, from Manchangoalhi Venus Thari, was also acquitted of aiding and abetting the murder.

Judge Abdulla Didi noted in the verdict (Dhivehi) that Islamic Sharia requires the eyewitness testimony of two males to prove guilt in murder cases.

The state had presented one eyewitnesses to the assault and three witnesses who claimed to have heard the victim saying before he died that Shahum stabbed him.

The victim had died of several stab wounds to the back and chest.

In December 2012, the Juvenile Court acquitted two minors charged in connection with the murder, citing insufficient evidence to convict.

In March 2013, Shahum was convicted on terrorism charges and sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with the murder of Mohamed Hussain, 17, from Maafanu Beauty Flower in Malé  in July 2010.

Shahum allegedly stabbed Basheer shortly after he was released by Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed following six months in remand detention after being arrested for the 17-year-old’s murder.

Citing the delay in submitting a medical report from the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, the chief judge had said he was releasing the suspect “to hold the health minister accountable”.

Shahum was later taken into custody from an uninhabited island following a manhunt.

Shahum, now 23, escaped from Maafushi jail last month and was apprehended in a guest house in in Malé on October 22.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Verdict in Afrasheem murder trial due on September 7

Judge Abdulla Didi has declared today that a verdict in the murder trial of Dr Afrasheem Ali will be delivered on September 7, reports local media.

The accused Ali Shan is on trial for allegedly killing the moderate religious scholar on October 1, 2012 together with Hussain Human, who was found guilty and sentenced to death by the Criminal Court in January.

Following testimony at today’s hearing from witnesses for the defence, Judge Didi said closing statements would be heard at the next trial date on August 28.

At the last hearing, four witnesses testified that Shan was at the Jalapeno restaurant on the night that MP Dr Afrasheem Ali was murdered.

A fifth witness, Ubaidhulla Saeed, told the court today that he saw Shan at the restaurant around 9:30pm on the night the former MP was murdered.

After having coffee with friends, Ubaidhulla said he and Shan went for a motorbike ride and was in the Dolphin Cafe when he heard of the murder. Shan was with him at the time, he said.

At a previous hearing, a witness for the prosecution testified to have seen Shan holding a blood-stained knife near Dr Afrasheem’s body by the staircase of the deceased’s residence.

At a hearing in February, state prosecutors presented evidence against the accused, including two witness testimonies, the confession of Humam, and a recording of a phone call.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Home Minister appeals arrest warrant

Home Minister Umar Naseer has appealed a Criminal Court arrest warrant at the High Court today.

The arrest warrant issued on Thursday orders the Maldives Police Services to arrest Naseer and present him at the Criminal Court at 11:00am on Tuesday (June 17), a High Court official said.

Naseer – currently in the Netherlands on an official visit – has failed to attend three consecutive hearings at the Criminal Court to answer charges of disobedience to order.

The Home Minister was abroad during all three hearings.

Home Ministry’s Media Coordinator Thazmeel Abdul Samad told Minivan News on Saturday that Naseer is not a fugitive from justice and will attend hearings willingly once he returns from the Netherlands on June 16.

The Maldives Police Services has acted differently in different arrest warrant cases.

The police arrested former President Mohamed Nasheed in 2012, and former MPs Abdulla Jabir and Hamid Abdul Ghafoor on the Criminal Court’s orders in 2013. But when the court ordered MP Ahmed ‘Sun Travel’ Shiyam be arrested in March, the police asked him to present himself at the police headquarters on the day in question and escorted him from the police station to the court.

The police have refused to comment on the arrest warrant.

Naseer was appointed as Home Minister on a cabinet slot allocated for the Jumhooree Party (JP) as part of the now defunct coalition agreement signed with the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM).

Two of the four ministers appointed on JP slots have switched to the PPM and its ally Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) following the dissolution of the coalition.

Naseer joined the JP in 2013 after losing the PPM’s presidential primary to incumbent President Abdulla Yameen.

The PPM expelled Naseer from the party after he alleged the primaries were rigged and accused Yameen of illicit connections with gangs and the illegal drug trade and vowed to bring a “white revolution” within the party.

Speaking to Minivan News in January Naseer said his earlier comments were “political rhetoric.”

In March, Naseer announced he will run for the presidency in 2023 but pledged to back Yameen for re-election in 2018.

“I am not a political threat to President Yameen. I am ready to work to help President Yameen get re-elected to presidency in 2018. What I may have said before, and the competition that existed between us before is a completely different matter. That has come to an end,” he said in an interview on state broadcaster Television Maldives’ Friday variety show ‘Heyyambo.’

Naseer is accused of calling for 2,000 volunteers on January 23, 2012 to storm the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) headquarters with 50 ladders during the two weeks of protests sparked by the military’s controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

On the night in question, Umar told anti-government demonstrators in front of the Maldives Monetary Authority building that they should use tactics to tire out the soldiers on duty before climbing into the military barracks, at which point “the people inside will be with us.”

“From today onward, we will turn this protest into one that achieves results,” Naseer had said.

“We know how people overthrow governments. Everything needed to topple the government of this country is now complete.”

After he was questioned by the police in September 2012, Naseer told the press that “there will be no evidence” to prove he committed a criminal offence.

“In my statement I did not mention where to place the ladders or where to climb in using the ladders,” Naseer had said.

If convicted, Naseer faces banishment, imprisonment or house arrest not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding MVR150 (US$ 10) under Article 88(a) of the penal code.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Umar Naseer is not a fugitive from justice, says Home Ministry

Home Minister Umar Naseer is not a fugitive from justice, the Home Ministry has said in response to local media reports of an arrest warrant to present Naseer at court.

Naseer – currently in the Netherlands on an official visit – has failed to attend three consecutive hearings at the Criminal Court to answer charges of disobedience to order.

Local media have claimed the Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant ordering the police to present the Naseer at court, but the Home Ministry and the Maldives Police Services declined to confirm if a warrant was issued.

Instead, Home Ministry’s Media Coordinator Thazmeel Abdul Samad said Naseer is not hiding from the courts and will attend hearings willingly once he returns from the Netherlands on June 16.

Naseer is accused of calling for 2,000 volunteers on January 23, 2012 to storm the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) headquarters with 50 ladders during the two weeks of protests sparked by the military’s controversial detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

During a first hearing into the case on April 27, Naseer denied charges. At a second hearing on May 22, he asked the court to strike down the clause he is being prosecuted under.

The Prosecutor General’s Office is pressing disobedience to order charges under Article 88 of the Penal Code with reference to Article 8 (a) of the General Laws.

The General Laws was passed in 1968 and the clause in question prohibits writing or speech against any tenet of Islam.

The Criminal Court scheduled a hearing on May 25, but Naseer left the country on an official trip and asked Judge Abdulla Didi to delay the trial.

A hearing was scheduled again for June 10, but the minister left the country on June 9 to source sniffer dogs and body scanners from the Netherlands.

The Home Ministry had sent a letter to the Criminal Court informing Judge Didi of Naseer’s absence on June 10, but Didi decided to go ahead with the hearing.

He argued the minister’s absence was unacceptable given his previous absence on May 25, and warned Naseer’s lawyer Adam Asif that action would be taken if the minister fails to attend the next hearing scheduled for June 12.

“I sincerely appeal to you not to force us to have the minister placed under detention and presented to court,” Didi said.

If convicted, Naseer faces banishment, imprisonment or house arrest not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding MVR150 (US$ 10) under article 88(a) of the penal code.

Naseer was appointed as Home Minister on a cabinet slot allocated for the Jumhooree Party (JP) on a now defunct coalition agreement with ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM).

Two other ministers appointed on JP slots have switched to the PPM and its ally Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA) following the dissolution of the coalition.

On January 23, 2012, Naseer told anti-government demonstrators in front of the Maldives Monetary Authority building that they should use tactics to tire out the soldiers on duty before climbing into the military barracks, at which point “the people inside will be with us.”

“From today onward, we will turn this protest into one that achieves results,” Naseer had said.

“We know how people overthrow governments. Everything needed to topple the government of this country is now complete.”

After he was questioned by the police in September 2012, Naseer told the press that “there will be no evidence” to prove he committed a criminal offence.

“In my statement I did not mention where to place the ladders or where to climb in using the ladders.” Naseer had said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Humam’s confession used against Shan in Dr Afrasheem’s murder trial

The Criminal Court has today heard the prosecution’s evidence against H. Hikost Ali Shan in the case of MP Dr Afrasheem Ali’s murder.

Evidence was presented separately in support of four separate assertions: Shan’s involvement in conspiring to murder, his going to to Dr Afrasheem’s house with the intent of murder, attacking the victim with a sharp object, and Dr Afrasheem’s subsequent death from the attack.

The confession from the Hussein Human Ahmed – who was recently sentenced to death for Afrasheem’s murder – was used to back all four assertions. Humam later stated that the confession was obtained by the  Maldives Police Service through coercive means.

Other evidence presented include two confidential witnesses, audio recording and the script of a phone call, and Dr Afrasheem’s medical report and death certificate.

The defense also presented evidence at today’s hearing. Sun Online reported that the evidence was presented to prove that Shan was in ‘Jalapeno Restaurant’ from 9:00pm on October 1 2012 until 1:00am.

‘CNM‘ reported that Shan’s Defense lawyer Abdulla Haseen had requested anonymity for defense witnesses stating that, due to the nature of the case, revealing their identities could endanger their lives. The request was granted by the judge.

According to ‘Haveeru‘, a request for leniency regarding Shan’s detention was rejected, with the judge stating that more importance would be given to finishing the case as soon as possible, and that previous scheduled hearings were canceled upon requests from the prosecutor general. The court has been extending Shan’s detention since late 2012.

The judge has  said that a hearing is likely to be scheduled within the next week, and that the case will be concluded as soon as statements of the witnesses are collected.

Dr Afrasheem Ali, a moderate Islamic scholar who was at the time representing Ungoofaaru constituency in the People’s Majlis, was found brutally murdered at his apartment building on the night of October 1 2012.

Shan, along with Humam, was charged with with the murder. In a hearing on May 6 2013, Humam denied the charge before changing his statement and confessing to the murder. He also implicated several others investigated for the murder. After nine days, however, Humam retracted the confession saying that it had been obtained by police through coercive means.

Other suspects mentioned in Humam’s confessional statement – a key piece of evidence on both his own and Shan’s cases – included a juvenile  identified as ‘Nangi, a Maldives National Defence Force officer Azleef Rauf, Abdulla ‘Jaa’ Javid (son-in-law of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik), Jaa’s brother Jana, and another person identified only as ‘Spy’.

In December 2012, then Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz described the murder as a “‘preplanned politically motivated act of terrorism carried out by politicians”.

He also said that both Humam and Shan belonged to a local gang who often carry out criminal acts for politicians and businessmen. Riyaz said that MVR14million was paid for the murder.

Politicians have similarly blamed the recent stabbing of MP Alhan Fahmy on criminal gangs with political paymasters.

Shan, who was arrested at the time of Riyaz’s press briefing, was only charged with the crime on  April 21 2013, where he requested to appoint a defense attorney for himself.

A hearing was held again on 5 May 2013, during which Shan’s defense refused to respond to charges until the findings of police investigations and statements of witnesses were presented. Agreeing to grant the request, the judge said that it was the prosecutor’s wish that it should not be presented.

Since May 2013 several scheduled hearings have been cancelled upon request from the prosecution, including one in July and December last year.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Chief suspect in Afrasheem murder case retracts confession, claims to have been coerced

The chief suspect alleged to have murder parliament member and prominent religious scholar Dr Afrasheem Ali, Hussain Humam, has retracted his previous confession to the crime, claiming it was obtained by police through coercive means.

Humam – who has been linked with smuggling drugs, gang violence and several other high profile crimes – confessed to the killing on May 22, answering “yes” in court when state prosecutors produced a statement detailing the murder and asked him if it was his.

According to that statement, Humam claimed the idea of killing Dr Afrasheem was given to him by Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) officer Azleef Rauf, whom he met at a baibalaa tournament held in 2012.

The pair later met in person again at a coffee, according to the statement, along with two other individuals Humam identified as Abdulla ‘Jaa’ Javid (son-in-law of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik) and his brother ‘Jana’.

According to the prosecutor’s statement, Humam was promised a sum of MVR 4 million (US$260,000) for murdering the religious scholar. The statement said Humam later asked Azleef Rauf why Afrasheem was to be murdered, and was told that one of the reasons were Afrasheem’s remarks during the day former President Mohamed Nasheed controversially resigned.

State prosecutors accused Humam, along with Ali Shan – who is also facing the same charges – and a minor identified as ‘Nangi’, of going to the residence of Dr Afrasheem and murdering him with a machete and a bayonet knife.

Humam’s retraction of his statement during yesterday’s court hearing is the second time he has denied committing the murder.

Court denies request for psychological testing

During the hearings, Humam’s defence lawyer requested the judge allow Humam’s sanity and mental stability be tested, claiming that Humam’s father had told him that the suspect had a mental disorder. He stressed that Humam himself had told Haseen that he wanted to consult a psychologist.

Haseen also took an oath swearing that he had never asked Humam to deny the charges levied against him, in response to ongoing public rumour that Haseen was behind Humam’s new denial.

Responding to the request made by Haseen, Judge Abdulla Didi denied the request for psychological testing, stating that Humam’s lawyer had not mentioned such a psychological disorder during the hearings held to extend Humam’s detention.

The judge further claimed Humam had pleaded with him to continue the trial behind closed doors.

Humam’s defence lawyer was allowed to enter the court only after Humam stood up without the permission of the judge and requested that his lawyer be present , and that he wished to proceed with his lawyer.

Speaking in the defence of the accused, Haseen contended that Humam had told him that the confession that he had given during the previous hearing was a result of threats by police.

His lawyer said Humam was warned that should he fail to comply with the deal offered by the police, they would charge him with other crimes of which he was accused.

The police also assured Humam that he would not be sentenced to death should he confess to the crime, Haseen alleged.

Witness’s narrative of the incident

During Saturday’s hearing the state presented two witnesses, included a minor alleged to have gone with Humam to Afrasheem’s residence, and the doctor who inspected the body.

The minor, who gave evidence over a distorted audio link and responded to questions from Humam’s defense lawyer Abdulla Haseen, said he knew Humam even before the events that led to the murder of the MP.

According to the minor, Humam had called him and told him that there was a ‘mission’. On the day the murder was carried out, Humam called him and requested him to meet up at Usfasgandu, while informing him that he had received briefings of what they needed to do to complete the said mission.

The witness told the court that he had gone to Usfasgandu, where he met with Humam and Ali Shan. After meeting up, the three then headed to ‘pad-park’ near Usfasgandu, where he claimed he saw Shan wielding a knife.

The witness told the court that they left the park and headed to ‘Kuda Kudhinge Bageecha’ – a children’s park located in front of Dr Afrasheem’s house. He claimed that Humam entered the residence and seconds later, a man carrying a stack of books entered into the same house, followed by Ali Shaan.

After a short while, Shaan called him. When he had entered the premises, he told the court he saw the man with the books brutally injured, lying on the floor.

The witness claimed that Humam was wielding a bloody knife and holding the hand of the injured man, which was also covered in blood. He also claimed that Ali Shan too had a knife.

Responding to the questions posed by Humam’s defence lawyer, the witness claimed  he had given evidence to the court on different occasions during November 2012.

When Haseen questioned whether the witness had been involved with previous criminal activities carried out by Humam, he answered stating that he had not, but said he had knowledge of what Humam had been doing.

As soon as Haseen began questioning the witness about his own criminal records, Judge Abdulla Didi stopped him stating that the questions did not have any relevance to the case at hand.

The doctor who had inspected the body of the deceased Afrasheem told the court through the assistance of a translator that there was no sign of life in Afrasheem’s body when he was brought to the hospital.

Explaining his observations, the doctor said that Afrasheem’s body had suffered severe injuries of the kind which could lead to death.

Next hearing

State prosecutors argued that Humam had confessed to the crime during the last hearing, as well as during a hearing held to determine the extension of his custody.

Therefore, the prosecution contested that it was a legitimate confession according to the constitution, that that therefore they felt that the court could issue a verdict based on the confession.

The judge concluded the hearing without announcing the date for a next hearing.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)