State Claims High Court Unconstitutionally Rejected Evidence in Yameen Case

The Supreme Court heard the state’s appeal yesterday, challenging the High Court’s dismissal of new evidence in former President Abdulla Yameen’s Aarah money laundering case as unconstitutional.

Yameen was sentenced to 11 years in prison on December 25, 2022, on charges of bribery and money laundering related to the sale of V. Aarah. However, the High Court overturned the convictions on April 18, citing significant legal irregularities, and ordered a retrial instead of granting full exoneration.

advertisement

The allegations against Yameen stem from claims that he accepted a bribe from former Felidhoo MP Yoosuf Naeem in connection with the Aarah deal. During the initial trial, Yameen had presented witnesses to substantiate his assertion that the money involved was for a US dollar exchange transaction. The prosecution subsequently introduced new witnesses to counter the defence’s claims, which the High Court later instructed to be disregarded in its ruling.

State prosecutor Ahmed Shafeeu argued during Wednesday’s hearing that the High Court’s directive to dismiss the new evidence contravened Article 143 of the Maldivian Constitution, which mandates lower courts to adhere to higher court precedents. He further stated that the decision contradicted principles established by the Supreme Court in Ali Zubair v Et al, which allow procedural errors to be rectified during judicial proceedings.

Shafeeu maintained that the lower court should have been permitted to evaluate the evidence after both parties presented their arguments. He asserted that the High Court’s dismissal had occurred during procedural deliberations, a stage where corrections could still be made. The prosecution is seeking to overturn the High Court’s ruling and to enable the evidence to be reconsidered in the retrial.

Representing Yameen, lawyer Hamza Latheef argued that evidence submitted at an inappropriate stage of a trial is rightfully dismissible. He claimed that the prosecution’s attempt to introduce new evidence in response to witness testimonies violated the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. Hamza contended that the High Court had properly evaluated the evidence and dismissed it as being improperly introduced for rebuttal purposes.

Hamza further emphasised that upholding the prosecution’s appeal would undermine justice by endorsing procedural violations, thereby infringing on his client’s rights.

The appeal is being presided over by a three-justice bench, comprising Justice Aisha Shujoon, Justice Dr. Azmiralda Zahir, and Justice Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim. A decision is yet to be announced.

This case has drawn significant public and legal attention, as it involves allegations of high-level corruption during Yameen’s presidency, which ended in 2018.