Court orders retrial of stepfather accused of sexual abuse after initial dismissal ruled unlawful
The High Court has overturned a Magistrate Court's decision to dismiss a sexual abuse case involving a stepchild on the grounds that the statute of limitations for filing charges had expired. The High Court ruling followed an appeal by the Prosecutor General’s Office, which argued that the lower court's dismissal violated the Criminal Procedure Act; the appellate judges unanimously agreed, ordering the Magistrate Court to proceed with a full trial on the merits of the case.
A photograph taken outside the High Court. | High Court
The High Court of the Maldives has ruled that a Magistrate Court’s decision to dismiss charges against an individual accused of sexually abusing their stepchild was unlawful.
In this case, the defendant has been charged with committing a sexual act with a minor while in a position of trust. The incident related to these charges occurred in 2021.
The defendant is accused of sexually abusing his stepchild. He allegedly subjected the child to sexual abuse on multiple occasions.
The charges in this case have been filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenders Act.
However, the Magistrate Court where the case was filed dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that it lacked legal merit. Furthermore, the court ordered the immediate release of the suspect, who had been held in remand pending the outcome of the trial.
The court reached this decision on the grounds that the Prosecutor General’s Office had accepted and filed charges in the case after the statutory investigative deadline prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Act had already expired.
Consequently, the Prosecutor General’s Office appealed the Magistrate Court’s decision to the High Court. The appeal was submitted on a single legal ground. The PG Office contended that the Magistrate Court’s ruling was issued in violation of Sections 94 and 119 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as well as Article 143 (d) of the Constitution.
The Prosecutor General’s Office has requested the court to overturn the Magistrate Court’s ruling and declare the case admissible on its merits. Furthermore, the Office has sought to have the matter remanded to the Magistrate Court for a retrial.
According to the Prosecutor General’s Office's submissions to the High Court, the presiding judges dismissed the case on their own initiative by citing a legal defense that could obstruct prosecution, despite the defendant never having raised such a defense. The PG Office further contended that a defense acting as a bar to prosecution, as stipulated under Section 119 of the Criminal Procedure Act, is not a remedy that can be invoked exclusively following the conclusion of the pretrial stage.
Police detailed the grounds for requesting an extension of the investigation period during the court proceedings. The authorities sought the extension citing the pending gender assessment report of the minor involved, the outstanding statement of one witness, and the need to address specific rectifications advised during consultations with the Prosecutor General’s Office.
The three-judge panel presiding over the case at the High Court has unanimously ruled to overturn the lower court's decision. Furthermore, the judges have decided to remand the case back to the lower court for retrial.
The High Court bench presiding over the case was chaired by Judge Abdul Rauf Ibrahim. He was joined by Judge Abdul Maaniu Hussain and Judge Ismail Shafeeu.
