Yumna requests meeting with High Court Chief Judge over brother’s delayed appeal
MP Faris in detention for six months
Yumna Maumoon (C) requested for a meeting with the High Court over delayed appeal hearings
Yumna Maumoon, sister to jailed Dhiggaru Constituency MP Ahmed Faris Maumoon, has requested for a meeting with High Court Chief Judge over the delayed appeal for the Parliamentarian.
A letter sent in by Yumna to High Court on Sunday states that MP Faris’ appeal was filed six months ago, with no verdict announced even after the hearings were concluded. Therefore, Yumna had requested a meeting with High Court Chief Judge Abdullah Didi.
MP Faris was arrested on July 18th, on allegations of attempted bribery. Criminal Court ordered his detention on the next day until the investigation and hearings into the allegations were concluded, when produced at Court for remand hearings.
His appeal on arrest and detention was filed on July 25th.
Halfway through the appeal hearings, the bench overseeing the case was changed. The former bench that presided over the case included High Court’s Chief Judge Abdulla Didi, Judge Ali Sameer and Judge Abdul Rauf Ibrahim. However, Judge Shujau Usman later replaced Judge Sameer.
Judge Shujau Usman had presided over the case, with the hearings concluded in November 2017. No verdict had been announced since then and the Court is yet to offer a reason on why a verdict was being delayed.
Defense lawyers had filed case in Supreme Court over the change in bench, mid-trial.
In the hearing on October 10th, Supreme Court ruled that the High Court will have to make a decision on the plea sent in by the defense, even if the same plea was filed in Supreme Court. This, the Supreme Court said had been communicated to High Court as well.
In the hearing on October 31st, the defense argued that Chief Judge Abdullah Didi cannot rule on whether the change to the bench was valid, given that he was part of the bench. However, the Court had ruled against this, ruling that the change was valid.
Though Supreme Court had ruled that High Court must give legal grounds to support their decision, no such grounds or explanation were given.
