Judges Raise Alarm as FENAKA Employs Persons Accused of Murder

High Court judges have raised concerns after FENAKA Corporation employed two individuals accused in the 2017 murder case of Nadeem Ibrahim.

Nadeem Ibrahim was attacked with sharp objects within the premises of the Terminal Cafe in 2017, leading to his tragic death. The accused individuals involved in the incident were identified as G.Sharaaz Mafaaz Hussain Saleem, L.Gan Vidhaathari Ali Nifaaz, R.Innamaadhoo Samantha, Hussain Shameena, and GA.Gimanafushi Havaas Mohammed Karam Suhail.

advertisement

advertisement

advertisement

Despite being charged, the Criminal Court declared them not guilty last year. However, the prosecution lodged an appeal with the High Court, urging that the accused be remanded in custody until the case’s final resolution. 

Prosecutor General’s office argued that due to their criminal records and the evidence against them, the accused posed a threat to society and therefore should not be granted their freedom.

As a result, the case underwent further proceedings in the court, and all involved parties were detained for the duration of the trial.

Hussain Mazeedh, who is a member of the judicial panel, expressed bewilderment over the employment status of two of the accused individuals, namely Hussain Shameen and Mohammed Karam Suhail. Both of them were employed by the state-owned FENAKA Corporation and were granted senior officer positions.

The judge pondered, “this situation presents a perplexing stance by the state. What should the court’s perspective be? What is the intention of the state? Are these individuals to remain employed or held in detention?”

Responding to this concern, Public Prosecutor Ahmed Naushaad stated that he was not aware of the employment of Shameen and Mohamed Karam Suhail by the FENAKA Corporation. He further commented that if such employment had indeed taken place, it demonstrated a remarkable lack of responsibility on the part of the government-owned entity.

“The Prosecutor General’s stance remains consistent. The decision to hire these individuals appears to be a reckless one,” Naushaad asserted.

Legal representatives of the accused countered that there were insufficient grounds to keep their clients in custody. They emphasised that their employment by a responsible state-owned enterprise should be considered as a positive factor. Additionally, the defense lawyers highlighted the importance of considering the current living conditions of the accused when deciding on their detention status.