Charges against Iuthisam in IED case: Court rules charges cannot be dismissed despite trial delays!
The Supreme Court has ruled against dismissing terrorism charges against Iuthisam Mohamed Saeed, despite defense arguments regarding trial delays. The court determined that the proceedings were not stalled solely due to state negligence, noting that several hearings were canceled at the defense's request and further delays were caused by changes in the presiding judges.
Supreme Court hearing – IED case. | RaajjeMV | Raajje MV
The Supreme Court has upheld a High Court ruling stating that there are no grounds to dismiss charges against Iuthisam Mohamed Saeed. The case, which dates back to April 2017, involves allegations of preparing materials used for the production of forged identification cards.
In the case submitted by Iuthisam, it is contended that the state's conduct in filing the charges has obstructed the right to a trial within a reasonable timeframe, as guaranteed under Articles 42 and 51 of the Constitution. Consequently, the defense is seeking a dismissal of the charges.
However, both the lower court and the High Court ruled that the charges could not be dismissed on those grounds. The Supreme Court of the Maldives upheld that decision on Monday.
The Supreme Court's ruling noted that several factors contributed to the delays in the case. These include the cancellation of numerous scheduled hearings at the request of the defense, as well as administrative changes such as the reassignment of presiding judges. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the state cannot be held solely responsible for the protracted nature of the proceedings.
The state has filed charges against a total of four individuals in connection with this case. The Criminal Court is conducting separate proceedings for each of the accused. All four individuals have been charged with attempting to commit an act of terrorism.
However, among those involved, Iuthisam is currently the only individual remaining in custody pending the conclusion of the trial. Iuthisam has now been in detention for more than five years.
Although the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling that the charges in this case cannot be dismissed, the Supreme Court justices also expressed concern over the significant delays in the proceedings.
Justice Aisha Shujoon Mohamed stated that holding an individual in pretrial detention for over five years is an excessive duration. She further noted that it is unjust for a person to remain in custody for such an extensive period without a conviction.
However, the judge stated that in instances where cases are delayed for various reasons, dismissing the charges or halting proceedings as a legal remedy is not considered a sound principle when compared to the practices of democratic nations. The judge further noted that no legal precedent or principle had been presented in this case to justify such an action.
Consequently, the Supreme Court has upheld the ruling that there are no grounds to dismiss the charges.
The case was presided over at the Supreme Court by a bench consisting of Justice Aisha Shujune Muhammad, Justice Ali Rasheed Hussain, and Justice Abdulla Didi.
