Hoodh’s Terrorism Conviction: Did FBI’s Forensic Analysis Maintain a Complete Chain of Custody?

Hoodh Mohamed Zahir has appealed his 23-year prison sentence following a conviction on terrorism charges, contending that the verdict was based on corrupt and invalid evidence.

In 2022, five charges were brought against Hoodh under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Last September, the Criminal Court found him guilty on three of those counts and sentenced him to 23 years in prison.

The charges include membership in a terrorist organization, supporting a terrorist organization, and the possession of documents, drawings, or photographs that imply support for such a group.

The Criminal Court's ruling has been appealed to the High Court of the Maldives on his behalf, and the High Court has officially registered the case.

In his appeal, the defendant contended that the primary evidence used to secure his conviction was obtained through the forensic analysis of a mobile phone seized from his possession. This evidence included photographs, documents, and chat logs recovered from the device. Specifically, the materials featured documents bearing the ISIS logo and flag, excerpts from magazines affiliated with the terrorist organization, as well as imagery depicting combat scenes and military-grade weaponry.

The device in question is a Samsung Galaxy Note 9. In its closing statement, the prosecution revealed for the first time that the phone was unlocked by sending it abroad to the FBI. The state further noted that the chain of custody records would confirm the device was transported to the United States.

However, the appeal highlighted that the phone's chain of custody does not indicate it was ever taken out of the country. It further noted that although this point was brought to the lower court's attention, the court failed to address or rule on the matter in its final judgment.

Under these circumstances, Hoodh’s appeal highlighted that there is no evidence to confirm that the phone cited in the case was the same device seized from his possession.

Therefore, his defense argued that the verdict was based on corrupt and invalid evidence. They further contended that the conviction, which relied on evidence recovered from the phone, was obtained in violation of the chain of custody protocols established under the police regulations for criminal investigations.

The state maintains that police accessed Hoodh’s phone for investigative purposes under the authority of a court order. However, the appeal contends there is no evidence such an order existed for that specific action, asserting that the warrant issued by the Criminal Court did not grant police the legal authority to use or bypass the device's password.

The appeal states that the court order specifically mandated Hoodh to provide his phone's passcode, but did not grant permission or authority to send the device to the FBI for the purpose of bypassing the security code.

Furthermore, it was stated that the evidence obtained through the forensic analysis of the phone constitutes unlawfully obtained evidence.

Based on the evidence presented in this case, the lower court's ruling established that Hoodh served as a key figure in coordinating with ISIS members online to disseminate the group's propaganda through various media channels.

In reaching its decision, the lower court took into account his involvement in translating posts that incited attacks against Christians during the Christmas period. The court also noted his communications with an account named "Baghdadi" regarding several attacks claimed by ISIS, as well as evidence that he served as an administrator for various channels associated with the group.

The defense argued that although the IDs used on his phone were active in those groups and channels, they could have been accessed by another individual using a different device. The lower court's ruling also acknowledged this as a possibility.

However, the lower court's ruling stated that if it were determined that Hood could not be held accountable based solely on that principle, there would be no circumstances under which an individual could be held liable for any illegal acts committed through such identities.

The High Court has officially registered the appeal filed by Hoodh, challenging the ruling issued by the lower court.