Lawyers for jailed Member of Parliament for Dhiggaru Constituency Ahmed Faris Maumoon has stated that evidence against the Parliamentarian had been ‘fabricated’ and that based on the way the case was proceeding, they said the Parliamentarian was now suspected of having accepted bribes.

Speaking in a press conference on Tuesday evening, lawyer Maumoon Hameed said that MP Faris was arrested and detained on the charges of offering bribes to his fellow Parliamentarians. However, the charges in the paperwork on him show the case corresponds to clause 510 (a) of the Penal Code, which are on accepting bribes.

Clause 510 (a) of the Constitution says that accepting favors for oneself and others, while as state employee and if the favor abuses official responsibilities and if the favor forces the individual to act in a certain manner, then it is a punishable offence.

Lawyer Hameed noted the various issues with the forensic analysis report made on the Parliamentarian’s phone as evidence.

As such, the lawyer said that the report on the phone confiscated from the Parliamentarian on June 05, 2017 was concluded by August 08,2017. The report, he said was signed by three officers of different ranks. Station Inspector Ismail Shareef made the analysis, while Inspector Ali Nazeef checked the report, with Chief Inspector Ahmed Rashwan signing off on the report.

As the report was used in many different ways as evidence, Hameed said it was very likely the report was fabricated.

As such, he noted the phone was in Police custody from June 05, 2017 and there was photograph taken on June 15, 2017 and screenshots taken on July 3, 2017 and that they were being used against the Parliamentarian. Given the circumstances of the phone, the lawyer said this can be deemed as ‘fabricating evidence’. He added that the alleged messages ‘do not implicate MP Faris either’ and stated that there was no information on whether any action was taken on the individual suspected of actually having offered the bribe.

Maumoon Hameed said that MP Faris was detained on July 17 and remanded on July 18, based on the information on the forensic analysis report. This information, he pointed out was used by the state as their argument in the appeal hearings of the Parliamentarian.