Justice system belongs to the people; weaponizing it to penalize the public is irrational: Didi
Former Chief Justice Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi has asserted that contempt of court measures should be reserved strictly for actions that obstruct the course of justice, arguing that punitive measures such as imprisonment are inappropriate for other matters. Referring to a recent court order issued regarding a documentary by "Adhadhu" news, Dr. Didi emphasized that such orders must align with constitutional objectives, noting that the specific respondent in the case remains unclear. He further contended that public discussion surrounding the matter does not constitute witness intimidation or unlawful influence over evidence.
Former Chief Justice Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi. | RaajjeMV
Former Chief Justice Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi has stated that the justice system belongs to the people, and that it would be illogical to weaponize it as a means of punishing the public.
Speaking on RaajjeTV’s "TV Talk" program, Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi stated that according to international best practices, the primary consideration in cases of constructive contempt of court—contempt occurring outside the courtroom—is whether the actions obstruct the legal process. Dr. Didi further noted that disciplinary measures and legal actions are typically pursued only when an individual's conduct reaches a level that actively impedes the administration of justice.
Beyond those specific instances, minor matters should not be weaponized to imprison people for three or four months. The justice system belongs to the people; it operates in their name. Justice is administered on behalf of the citizens. It is their institution. Therefore, using "contempt of court" as a mechanism to penalize the public within their own system is fundamentally illogical. Any such order must be practical and applicable.Former Chief Justice Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi
When discussing court orders, such as the gag order issued regarding the documentary released by Adhadhu news, the most critical factor to consider is whether the judge issued the order to achieve the objectives stipulated in the Constitution. Didi noted that it must be determined, for instance, whether the order was issued to protect public order and morality, or to prevent clear and direct interference with evidence.
Didi stated that in such cases, the restrictions should focus on the actual discussions surrounding the matter, specifically the examination of evidence and any attempts to influence it. However, Didi noted that the court order contains entirely different provisions. Pointing out that these elements are not applicable, Didi further highlighted that the identity of the respondent in this case remains unclear.
Didi stated that this matter is common knowledge and that people will inevitably discuss it. He reiterated that such discussions do not constitute witness intimidation.
