State: Testimony provided by secret witness in Yameen Rasheed murder case cannot be retracted
23 އޯގަސްޓު 2026 | އާދީއްތަ 11:02The state has argued that a protected witness cannot retract their testimony in the retrial of two individuals convicted of murdering Yameen Rasheed. Prosecutors contended that the witness's attempt to withdraw their statement via a letter two years after testifying suggests undue influence, and therefore, the court should disregard the submission.
Yameen Rasheed was stabbed to death in the early hours on 23 April 2017 in an attack that shook the nation. | Twitter
The state has asserted that a protected witness in the murder case of blogger Yameen Rasheed cannot retract the testimony previously provided to the court.
The state filed charges against six individuals in connection with the murder of blogger Yameen Rasheed. The defendants are Ismail Haisham Rasheed (M. Annarumaage), Hussain Ziyad (M. Kolhufushi East), Ismail Rasheed (M. Thaif), Hassan Shifaz (M. Kudhehige), Mohamed Dhifran (Sindhubadhuge, GDh. Gadhdhoo), and Ahmed Zihan Ismail (M. Erasmikuge).
The Criminal Court has delivered its verdict in the case, finding the defendants Haisham and Zihan guilty. However, the court ruled that the charges brought by the state against the remaining four individuals were not proven.
Following an appeal of the decision by Haisham and Zihan, the High Court ruled that the Criminal Court must conduct a retrial and reach a new verdict on the matter. During the subsequent hearing held in accordance with this ruling, discussions focused on a letter submitted by a protected witness.
While the Criminal Court proceedings had concluded and a sentencing hearing was scheduled, the then-Chief Judge Ahmed Shakeel received an unexpected letter from a protected witness.
Judge Adam Mohamed clarified the matter during the sentencing hearing held at the time.
The presiding judge noted that the letter failed to provide specific details regarding the circumstances of duress faced by the anonymous witness. Furthermore, the judge highlighted that while the evidence laws in effect at the time did not outline a procedure for recanting testimony, this remains an issue that must be addressed within the legal framework.
At the time, the prosecution also submitted documentation alleging that secret witnesses were being intimidated and influenced. Taking those documents into account, the judge decided to proceed with the sentencing without considering the letter in question.
During the ongoing hearing regarding the matter, the state prosecutor noted that the witness submitted the letter two years after providing their testimony, despite having had the opportunity to raise those concerns at the time the testimony was originally given.
