Criminal Court held a hearing in the corruption trial against former President Abdulla Yameen Abdul over the lease of R. Fuhgiri for resort development, on Sunday.

The former president was charged with both bribery and money laundering in regards to the lease of Fuhgiri island in the Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation (MMPRC) corruption scandal. The Court broadcasted the preliminary hearing held regarding the final submissions from both the prosecution and witness, live via YouTube.

The charges detail that Yameen accepted USD 1,117,000 in bribes for leasing Fuhgiri island, and that he had employed Ahamed Krik Riza to help funnel the money through Sun Construction and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Sun Investments Pvt. Ltd.

The state seeks to obtain the USD 1,117,000 from Yameen, through court.

Judge Ahmed Shakeel is presiding over the case.

As submissions were presented from both sides, only one was set forth by the state, under Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Act. They asked that the court protect the information comprised in a CD in their report as it contains personal information regarding people being investigated in a joint investigation by three state institutions that could interfere with their research. The state also highlighted that they did not wish for the information to be leaked by any means as it could be used by the defense to tamper with evidence.

This statement by the state was rebutted by defense attorney Abdulla Shiyaz, who stated that the reasoning behind not revealing the information on the CD has no legal grounds.

Shiyaz stated that there is no way the defense can argue with the state without acknowledging all details and affirmed that the state must provide evidence for the statements they made and asked that the court rules in favor of this objection.

A total of four submissions were made by the former president's legal team during the course of the hearing, to invalidate the statements made by witnesses, MMPRC former Managing Director Abdulla Ziyath, Former Vice President Ahmed Adheeb, Ahmed Amir, Mohamed Shifau, Ali Mauroof, Ibrahim Rasheed, Ahmed Shaaig, Ahmed Shakir, Meedhoo Constituency MP Ahmed Shiyam and Mohamed Hussainfulhu on the basis that their statements were unrelated to the prosecution.

Furthermore, the defense had requested that the statement made at court by witness Ibrahim Liraar, the officer who drafted the Police report be rejected as well claiming that the chatlogs included in the report are of someone else’s and has nothing to do with the defendant. The defense then went on to name various witnesses whose statements they believed to hold no value.

The second submission presented stated that the prosecution cannot move forward on the basis of their being a mistake in the prosecution form. Therefore, attorney Shiyaz asked that the court rule in their favor, as the extra names included in the re-submitted prosecution form is in violation of the Criminal Procedure Act.

While Yameen is not the only charged over the Fuhgiri case, the defence's third submission asks that the trials be held separately, to ensure justice is served. The fourth submission seeks for evidence to be revealed, with the defence noting five grounds evidence can be presented on.

The state had already presented evidence to back up their submissions. They also rebutted the statement made by the defense in regards to witnesses, Adheeb and Ziyath being “machines created by the state” to speak against the defendant. The state highlighted that both Adheeb and Ziyath attain complete knowledge of the case and affirmed that according to law, witnesses involved in the case are to provide statements. The state prosecutor stressed that those involved would be able to provide the most accurate information in the case. The state then informed that this case was very similar to ‘Operation Car Wash’ in Brazil back in 2014 and affirmed that the legal systems all over the world operate the same way.

Presiding Judge Shakeel clarified all required details in relation to the five new submissions during the hearing, and said that a decision will be announced over this at the next hearing.

While the defence asked for an additional hearing over the matter, the state argued that this case would never come to an end if constant hearings are held over the same matter.

The court announced that the next hearing in the trial will be held on October 4, telling both parties to complete all required procedures prior.