MP Faris' trial: State lawyers request for anonymous witnesses citing economic losses
State claimed that witnesses stood to lose their jobs
MP Faris Maumoon: the Parliamentarian is on trial for identity theft
State prosecutors have requested anonymity for their witnesses in the ongoing identity theft charges raised against Dhiggaru Constituency MP Ahmed Faris Maumoon, citing possible economic losses.
State lawyers had brought in two witnesses, video evidence, Civil Court verdict, letter from Elections Commission (EC) and a letter sent in by Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) to Maldives Police Service (MPS).
State lawyer, Aishath Reesha said they had requested for anonymity as they feared the witnesses may stand to lose their jobs if they gave their testimonies in Court. The two witnesses were present when opposition parties gave their press conference on March 22, 2017. They had been put forth as witnesses to prove that MP Faris had spoken on behalf of the ruling party.
MP Faris’ lawyer Maumoon Hameed questioned whether the economic loss was the loss of the bribe given to falsify his testament against MP Faris. Maumoon argued that witnesses cannot be kept anonymous. If, he said, the state wished to keep their witnesses anonymous, they had not filed for such an order.
The state’s lawyers argued that they had filed for such an order, which can be processed once when the Court makes a decision.
Retorting back to the state’s lawyers, Maumoon said there was no point in quoting the law if the state lawyers translated the law "as they see fit".
The Civil Court verdict submitted as evidence concerns the decision passed on October 16, 2016 which had ordered to grant the powers of the Party to Chief Advisor President Abdullah Yameen. The letter from EC was regarding the dismissal of MP Faris from the Party register. The letter sent by the Party was the one sent by PPM asking to investigate the press conference held by MP Faris. The CD contained the recording of the entire press conference.
When presented with the witnesses, Maumoon argued that identity was stolen by MP Abdul Raheem, as he had no standing within the PPM to send an official letter. He added that the Party’s President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom had sent a letter on October 15, 2016 to Abdul Raheem informing that he had been dismissed from the Party and Council. Maumoon had questioned on why no case had been filed against Abdul Raheem when he himself was guilty of the same thing MP Faris was accused of.
In the next hearing of the case, witnesses will give their statements. The Court will also decide on anonymity of witnesses and on accepting the evidence filed.
