MP’s bribe confession remains unchecked, MMPRC case heads to trial
MMPRC case investigated, heads to trial
Hoarafushi Constituency MP Mohamed Ismail; to this day he remains uninvestigated in spite of confession over bribes
RaajjeMV understands that the admission made by Hoarafushi Constituency MP Mohamed Ismail over the graft of Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation (MMPRC), did not make the cases connected to MMPRC that are to be tried.
In a Parliament session on March 9th, the Parliamentarian confessed that he had ‘lunged around a sack of money’ for former Vice President Ahmed Adeeb and ‘distributing it on his behalf’. He made the same confession on a live program on other media as well.
Investigation into MMPRC graft was concluded and sent for trial, with some charges raised against ex-VP Adeeb.
Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) began investigating the case back in March 2016, with the Commission stating the investigation on the Parliamentarian will be carried out as part of the main investigation. Media official for the commission had confirmed this as well.
An independent party had filed MP Ismail’s confession in Maldives Police Service (MPS) for investigation. However, MPS had refused to investigate the case citing that it was already under investigation by ACC.
MP for Dhiggaru Constituency Ahmed Faris Maumoon’s defense had also requested for an injunction to arrest MP Ismail over his statements. MP Faris, currently under detention and trial on bribery allegations, filed the injunction on August 7th. In the letter sent to Prosecutor General’s Office, MP Faris said PG had failed to take action and Police had refused to review the case, in spite of the Parliamentarian’s own confession that he had taken and distributed bribes.
The letter had also requested to clarify the legal grounds for arresting one person on allegations of bribery and inaction over another person’s confession of having distributed bribes. It went on to add MP Faris had denied having offered bribes and, in spite of this, was arrested and detained. The letter added that when a person had confessed to crime and remains at large, while a person who had denied the same charges was jailed, casts clear doubts on whether law is really being implemented.
