The Supreme Court has ruled that police intelligence officers can give evidence anonymously in terrorism-related cases where there is reasonable cause to believe that revealing their identities could place them at risk.
The ruling was issued in an appeal concerning the trial of three individuals prosecuted by the State under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The State has charged Ibrahim Visam with attempting to go to foreign war. Sausan Rasheed faces charges of attempting to go to war and possessing documents indicating support for a terrorist organisation.
Abdulla Huvairish bin Mohamed has been charged with possessing documents indicating support for a terrorist organisation, planning to commit an act of terrorism and attempting to send a person to war.
During the trial, the State asked the Criminal Court to issue a protective order allowing an intelligence report and the officer who prepared it to be presented without revealing the officer’s identity.
The Criminal Court rejected the request, ruling that the State had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for the officer to testify anonymously. The High Court subsequently upheld the decision, prompting the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In its ruling, delivered by Justice Hussain Shaheed, the Supreme Court found that there was reasonable cause to believe that intelligence officers could face a threat if their identities were disclosed.
The State argued that revealing the intelligence officer’s identity in the case led to the officer being transferred to desk duties. It also argued that the Maldives has a relatively small number of police intelligence officers and that identifying them could affect intelligence and investigative operations.
The State further argued that intelligence officers face a collective risk because they operate under similar circumstances.
The Supreme Court ruled that the State does not need to provide separate, individualised reasons for protecting each intelligence officer who is required to testify.
Instead, the court found that it is sufficient for the State to present reasons demonstrating a general threat to the intelligence officers whose identities could be disclosed through their testimony.
The ruling provides a legal basis for maintaining the anonymity of intelligence officers in circumstances where the court is satisfied that disclosure of their identities could pose a threat.
