The High Court judges' bench has overturned the Registrar's decision to reject the appeal of the case of seizing the passport of former State Minister at the Housing Ministry, Akram Kamaludeen.

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.

Initially, Akram's passport was seized for a period of one month starting from 20 December 2024. The Criminal Court issued a second order to seize Akram's passport from January 20 to February 18, at the request of ACC in connection with the Gedhoruveriyaa scheme.

Akram appealed the case, noting that it was a matter that could be reviewed in the Criminal Court. Akram submitted a request to the High Court to review the Registrar's decision to reject the appeal. After reviewing the case, the judges' bench has decided that the Registrar's decision was wrong.

The panel of three judges includes Judge Dheebanaaz Fahmy, Judge Huzaifa Mohamed, and Judge Mohamed Shaneez Abdulla. Among them, Judge Dheebanaaz Fahmy and Judge Huzaifa Mohamed stated that the Registrar's decision was wrong. However, Judge Mohamed Shaneez Abdulla's opinion was that the Registrar's decision was correct.

Shaneez stated that if there was a debate about the circumstances under which the order was issued, there was an opportunity to review it in the lower court that issued the order. He also said that such a case could be heard in an appellate court only after completing the review process that needs to be conducted in the lower court. Therefore, although it was noted that the right to appeal would be lost, Shaneez said that if there was an additional opportunity in the lower court, it would be an expansion of rights.

While ordering the seizure of Akram's passport, ACC submitted his bank statements and details of his trips abroad as evidence to prove that he might flee. However, Akram raised an appellate point stating that this was not evidence proving that he was uncooperative with the investigation or attempting to flee the country.

The reason being that he has never fled from any investigation or trial before, and he has previously responded to allegations made against him if any suspicions were raised.

In addition to this, it was stated that there is no substantial evidence to support the allegations against him, as the investigation has been ongoing for nearly a year. It was also noted by the defendant that no new evidence was presented to the court when a instructions were given to seize his passport.

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, ACC should clarify what circumstances have changed.