State rejects request to halt MP Faris’ trial
Cites difficult to bring witnesses if delayed
MP Faris Maumoon arriving in Court for hearings
Prosecution has argued against the case made by defense lawyers for Dhiggaru Constituency MP Ahmed Faris Maumoon to halt the hearings of the attempted bribery charges made against him.
Prior to start of the trial, defense lawyers had requested to halt this trial as they had filed three appeals on verdicts issued by Criminal Court, until Court reaches a decision on them. The lawyers had filed appeals on Criminal Court’s decision to detain him for the duration of trial and investigation, legality of the charges raised on MP Faris and the ruling that mandated the charges can be carried out on him.
On Thursday’s preliminary hearings, MP Faris’ lawyer Maumoon Hameed said the Court was able to carry out these hearings because of the decisions announced by Court on September 25. He noted that in the event, the verdicts issued by High Court and Criminal Court differed, then all the resultant procedures will be on false grounds. As such, he said if the High Court verdict differed from Criminal Court verdict, then the integrity of both Criminal Court and the entire judiciary will be in question.
Hameed added the High Court had previously halted trial when they had filed appeal over change in bench reviewing the case. He indicated that so long as Supreme Court does not nullify the verdicts of High Court, then the lower courts are compelled to follow the procedures and precedents.
State prosecutors had argued against the defense’s proposition. Lawyer Aishath Mohamed cited that if the hearings are postponed, then there may be issues in bringing the witnesses to the hearings. She added the interests of the society was bigger than that of MP Faris.
Noting that trials must begin within 70 days of documentation exchange, the lawyer said if delayed, then they may exceed the period set in law. Case documentation was exchanged on August 28th. prosecution said that given this time, the hearing must start at the latest by November 5th.
Maumoon Hameed argued that the prosecution was gunning for a rushed trial, accusing the prosecution of attempting to reach a verdict by November 11th or 17th.
Judge Ali Adam said the Court will not consider the period taken in the preliminary period when fixing a date for trial. As such, if the trial begins after November 5th, it would not be illegal or in violation of procedures.
The defense had also requested a motion to disclose evidence. Prosecutor said all documentation that can be released have been released and additional evidence can be released as well. However, the rest of the documentation were not with the prosecution. She said Police had not shared the documentation with the prosecution.
Additionally, prosecution argued that if documentation were released, then the anonymity of a witness will be compromised. Using this as justification, prosecution had argued against releasing the said information.
Responding to the allegations made by the prosecution, Maumoon Hameed questioned whether if the witness was afraid to meet MP Faris face to face. He also questioned on what aspect of MP Faris was so frightening to the witness.
The anonymous witness is a Parliament Member who was allegedly bribed. In spite of his allegation, the MP is unable to pinpoint when MP Faris had bribed him. State prosecutors say the witness was bribed after April 10th.
MP Faris’ defense had put forth 23 pre-trial motions; only nine had been addressed so far. The rest are to be debated at the next hearing, scheduled for 10 am on November 5th.
