Yameen’s appeal in Fuggiri case rejected

The Maldives Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the appeal filed by former President Abdullah Yameen against the Criminal Court’s decision in the Raa atoll Fuggiri case.

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no reason to quash the lower court’s decision on the evidence in the prosecution’s case against former President Abdullah Yameen for taking bribes and using the money

Yameen, who is currently serving an 11 years prison sentence for accepting bribes and money laundering in the Vaavu atoll Aarah lease case, was also charged with laundering USD 1.1 million received in bribes for the lease of Raa atoll Fuggiri.

Following the Criminal Court ruling on the case, his defence appealed against some of the rulings made by the court. Some of them included not accepting former Vice President Ahmed Adeeb and former Managing Director of Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation (MMPRC) Abdulla Ziyath as witnesses, in addition to requests made to recover certain documents according to the Evidence Act.

The court’s rulings were upheld by the Maldives High Court when it was appealed by Yameen.

After High Court’s decision was appealed by Yameen’s defense at the Supreme Court, a three-judge bench unanimously upheld High Court’s decision as well. However, the Supreme Court in its verdict identified some of the grounds in reaching High Court’s decision invalid.

The court ruled that the new evidence, with Adeeb and Ziyath as witnesses, cannot be induced according to the Evidence Act. The court said that the Act was enacted after the case had already entered trial, and it cannot be applied retrospectively to cases that predated its implementation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the evidence from Adeeb and Ziyath should only be considered in relation to their ongoing trial at the Criminal Court.

Yameen’s defense also appealed the absence of legal reasoning behind the admission of additional witness testimonies in the Criminal Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court, in its verdict, deemed this act as wrongful. However, the lower court cannot be compelled to undertake a retrial to amend the contested areas as the trial is already in progress and the parties still have the opportunity to present their arguments regarding the submitted evidence.