Criminal Court has scheduled a hearing of the attempted bribery charges raised against Dhiggaru Constituency MP Ahmed Faris Maumoon for Sunday.
On Sunday’s hearing, the Court will deliberate on the pre-trial motions set forth by the defense. The hearing is scheduled for 10am on Sunday.
A total of 23 pre-trial motions was submitted; the court had deliberated on nine of the motion so far.
In the hearing held on the 26th of last month, defense had requested to halt the ongoing trial.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 was detained on July 18th on the charges. Criminal Court on July 19th decreed that MP Faris should be kept in detention for the duration of investigation and trial of the bribery charges.
