Mahloof’s trial: only one witness used to establish crime, state denies statement
Defense asked to either nullify lower Court verdict or change to a penalty fee
Galolhu South Member of Parliament Ahmed Mahloof
Prosecution has denied the defense’s statements that the verdict on Galolhu South Member of Parliament Ahmed Mahloof was based on just one piece of witness.
Mahloof was sentenced to six months for obstruction charges, after having entered a closed off area during a protest in March 2015.
During the appeal hearings of the case held on Monday, Mahloof’s lawyer Nazim Abdu Sattar said that only one witness had given his statement against Mahloof. Nazim said that this was not admissible under Islamic Shariah, which mandates that statements from two separate witnesses are required.
Responding to the defense’s allegations, the prosecutors said that the witnesses statement was corroborated by two others. The state’s lawyer sad that while one Police officer had said that Mahloof entered a cordoned off area, the other two had claimed knowledge that Mahloof was present in a closed off area.
The defense further argued that it was unacceptable that the Court dismissed the evidence produced by them, calling it an “injustice”. Nazim said due to this, Mahloof did not have the opportunity to nullify the statements.
Responding to this, the prosecution said the Court had the right to refuse or allow a statement and that the defense had no grounds to challenge if the Court saw fit not to summon more than one witness.
Nazim further said that the six month jail term on the Parliamentarian was announced on Mahloof in violation of the Penal Code. He said the verdict was in excess of the procedures on determining penalties under the Penal Code. As such, Nazim noted that this six-month verdict was announced based on something that had occurred after the initial event.
The defense, therefore, had requested the Court to either nullify the lower Court’s verdict or to convert the jail term to a monetary penalty.
The hearings were concluded soon afterwards, as the recording system of the High Court had failed. Prior to conclusion, the Judges bench had announced that another hearing will be held this week.
