The case of seizing the passport of former State Minister at the Housing Ministry, Akram Kamaludeen, for the second time without any investigation has been appealed in the High Court.

The Criminal Court issued the order to seize Akram's passport at the request of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) in connection with the Gedhoruveriyaa scheme. The passport was seized from January 20 until February 18.

In the appeal submitted to the High Court, it has been highlighted that the Criminal Court order seizing Akram’s passport is in violation of Article 75 (a) and (e) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

As such, although the order states that Akram’s passport was seized and he was prohibited from leaving the Maldives during the specified period with reference to Article 75 of the Criminal Procedure Act, while the power to request the seizure of a suspect's passport is granted to law enforcement agencies under Article 75 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appeal notes that the article requires sufficient evidence to believe that the person has committed or is committing or is about to commit a crime and reasonable grounds to believe that the person is attempting to flee in order to request the seizure of a person's passport under this article.

Further, according to the court order, the reason to believe that Akram is attempting to flee the Maldives is that his bank statement shows he has the financial means to live abroad. However, the appeal points out that the evidence presented in the court order to support this reason does not constitute evidence that corroborates the suspect's attempt to flee, as stated in the Abdullah Jihad testimony of the Supreme Court of the Maldives.

In addition to this, the bank statement and travel history presented as evidence by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) only indicate Akram's financial capacity to travel abroad and details of his past travels abroad. The appeal argues that these documents do not, in themselves, support any claim that he has been planning to flee the country using his financial capabilities.

Further, a preliminary report compiled regarding the case has been presented as evidence supporting the claim that he is attempting to flee. Said report is a document compiled based on the commission's findings in the suspected case. The appeal notes that this is not 'relevant' evidence to determine an attempt to flee.

Akram is suspected of the offenses of bribery under Article 510 (a) (b) 1 and 2 of the Penal Code of Maldives and misuse of official authority and influence as a state official under Article 513 (b) 1 and 2 of the same law, for allegedly acting in a manner that facilitated corruption in the allocation of flats under the Gedhoruveriyaa scheme. The appeal argues that in this situation, the court should consider whether there is evidence linking him to the suspected crime or supporting the allegations against him.

Looking at the court order, the evidence presented includes a preliminary report prepared regarding the case and documents showing that the login of verifier Subuhath Ali was used to make changes to forms even after his resignation. The appeal contends that the preliminary report containing the Anti-Corruption Commission's investigative findings is an initial report based on the investigation's observations. It is expected to contain the Commission's inferences. However, the appeal argues that this report is not, in itself, evidence that can be given separate weight to support any specific claim made in the report.

Further, regarding the documents showing access to the Gedhoruveriyaa portal and changes made to forms, the person who accessed the portal was someone named Subuhath Ali. The appeal points out that there is no evidence to suggest that a third party accessed the portal with Akram’s knowledge, observation, or under his direction, and thus there is no basis to connect these documents with the allegations against Akram.

The points raised by Akram's side state that as the investigation approaches one year, if there was truly a basis for the allegations against Akram and if there was sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, the Anti-Corruption Commission would have presented additional evidence when requesting to seize his passport. This also reveals that even after the investigation has been prolonged multiple times, there is still no adequate evidence to support the allegations against him.

The appeal also suggests that the Anti-Corruption Commission's bad faith in seeking the appealed order is evident. While the investigation against Akram has been ongoing since January 2024, the Commission did not see a need to seize his passport during that period. However, his bank statement and travel history would have shown his financial capacity to travel abroad even during that time.

In addition to this, the appeal argues that if Akram had committed any criminal acts in this serious case under investigation, evidence of such acts would have been found by now if they had occurred. While there were no restrictions on his international travel during the past investigation period, the appeal contends that such an order should only be sought now if there has been a change in circumstances. The evidence claimed to be available in the case remains the same. While he is not suddenly attempting to leave the country, the Anti-Corruption Commission should clarify what circumstances have changed.

The appellant believes that behind the request for this travel ban order at this juncture is an ill intention to cover up allegations of corruption by parties affiliated with the current government under the Gedhoruveriyaa scheme, and to divert the direction of the entire case. Otherwise, there was an opportunity to request a travel ban order earlier during the investigation period, citing the risk of Akram fleeing.

Therefore, the appeal requests that the Criminal Court order be declared in violation of Article 75 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act and be annulled.