Chief of Justice Abdulla Saeed denied state allegations that he ordered employees to close down the Government E-letter Management System (GEMS), a network developed to exchange documents between government offices.

At the last preliminary hearing held on Monday, the Chief of Justice described the allegations accusing him of interfering with the functions of the government by ordering to close down GEMS network, as scandalous chatter.

Nevertheless, the government accused Justice Abdulla Saeed of giving the order to close down the functions of the network built to exchange documents between government offices, GEMS, on several occassions on 4th and 5th of February. 

Justice Abdulla Saeed denied the allegations saying that the act would have no reasonable benefits since GEMS network does not allow the Supreme Court to file cases to the court. Regarding the dates of the crime specified by the government, Chief of Justice questioned whether they knew he spent most of his time at home on those two days. Additionally, he questioned why the court's registrar and the head of cooperative service management was unaware of the inactiveness of GEMS network and why nobody from the court said anything about it. Justice Abdulla Saeed also said that he attended the court on the specified dates only to monitor the  court's decision on a case filed by the Prosecutor General (PG).

While acknowledging the issue of falsely framing people, Chief of Justice stated that the allegations against him are also untrue. When the presiding judge said that this case was not a serious matter during the conclusion, Justice Abdulla Saeed disagreed by saying that it was in fact a serious issue. He also labelled the hearings of this trial as abitrary, especially given that it is a serious constitutional issue.

The court decided to continue the case after declining the points presented prior to the trial by Chief of Justice as reasons to dismiss the allegations against him.

The judge presiding over the case, Ibrahim Ali said that even though Justice Abdulla Saeed denied several components of the allegations against him, he has not specified them yet.

The defense argued that if the allegation documents were signed by anyone other than the Prosecutor General (PG), a letter by PG confirming that needs to be attached with the documents. However, the court responded saying that even though the law requires PG to inform the court if another party is signing the forms, how it must be done is not specified. Regardless, the PG sent a letter later saying that they have given the information regarding the signatory earlier and that they have completed the process sufficiently. 

Judge Ibrahim Ali also replied to Chief of Justice's question regarding the missing details of when he ordered to close down the network, by saying that the court believes that time has in fact been specified since the allegations mentioned that the order was made during various occassions on 4th and 5th of February. He also stated that with the allegations and its consequences in mind, the case cannot be dismissed.

If the case against Justice Abdulla Saeed is proven, he will be sentenced to jail for four months and 24 days. Judge Ibrahim Ali said that admitting to the crime will minimize the sentence. 

Since interfering with the GEMS network was identified as a criminal case, Chief of Justice's lawyer Noorul Salaam requested the court to investigate why the reception at criminal court does not accept certain cases, as a criminal issue as well. However, Judge Ibrahim Ali dismissed the request by saying that the court has accepted all the documents applied regarding this case. 

The government has applied the names of three secret witnesses as well as some classified documents to prove the allegations against Chief of Justice Abdulla Saeed, and the defense has been permitted to introduce witnesses in the next hearing. While the court will hear the government witness testimonies first, the defense witnesses will be allowed to testify before the conclusion at the next hearing as well.

Due to the fast speed at which the trial is proceeding, it can be perceived that the court might come to a decision on the case within the next two weeks.