Lawyers team of Chief of Justice Abdulla Saeed and Justice Ali Hameed informed media that the Criminal Court sentenced both the individuals to prison after rejecting several statements given for the investigation and while the judges received defense testimonies against the accusations of influencing judges. 

Allegations against Chief of Justice as well as Justice Ali Hameed accusing them of influencing official procedure was proven in court through the secret witness testimonies provided by two other judges. The statements that were leaked on social media suggests that they were given by the head of Criminal Court Judge Adam Arif and Civil Court's judge Mohamed Haleem. 

The press statement released by the lawyer's team informed that at the last hearing a judge swore on God that the accused Justices did not influence him and added that the statement given for the investigation by the aforementioned judge was rejected by the authorities. 

'In the cases against both Justices, the secret witness swore on God that none of the Justices influenced the aforementioned judge. However, the decision was based on a defense witness statement which was given for the investigation and declined during the hearing. Also, the investigation statement wasn't listed as evidence in the said cases', the statement read.

It also included that making the decision based on the aforementioned witness testimonies shows that Chief of Justice and Justice Ali Hameed were sentenced without questioning the wintesses' integrity in accordance with islamic sharia and law. Furthermore it was highlighted that the two witnesses who gave the testimonies were the ones who alleged the Justices of influencing public officials as well. 

While this case was proven against both the Justices, they have also received terrorism allegations. 

The statement released by lawyers highlighted that it is unconstitutional to punish someone for the same crime twice. 

While commenting on the speed of the trial, the lawyers team said that they were concerned because the trial was not proceeding without doctrine of necessity in mind and highlighted that it is a basic right of the alleged individuals to have received enough time to prepare a defense. The statement also highlighted that continuing to do otherwise is unconstitutional.