Ex-Pres. Maumoon obstruction case: court ignores state's request to make witnesses secret
22 މެއި 2018 | އަންގާރަ 17:09PG requested to issue an order to keep the identities of their witnesses secret, as well as to take testimonies via sound-altered video conference
Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom
Criminal Court has ruled to move forward with the obstruction of justice charges against former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, without responding to state's request to make their witnesses secret.
While these are the same allegations raised against Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and Justice Ali Hameed, their hearings were being held together. However, the former president was unable to attend the last hearing in the case due to ill health, and the court had carried out the hearing against the two Supreme Court justices. At the hearing, the presiding judge addressed the points made by both the prosecution and defence, but did not hear Maumoon's case.
At the hearing held on Tuesday, the presiding judge informed that the court will make its rulings regarding the motions submitted by both sides. Hence, the former president's attorney questioned the court on whether it had already made a decision on the motions submitted by the stated earlier, to which the presiding judge responded that the court had, at the last hearing, ruled only in the cases of the two justices. With this, he gave the state the opportunity to resubmit their motions and the Prosecutor General's Office submitted two new motions.
The said two motions are; to issue a permanent order to keep all details of their witnesses secret, and to take their testimonies via video conference with their voices altered.
Meanwhile the defense submitted 12 motions to the court.
However, after halting the hearing few minutes, the presiding judge overruled the motions submitted by the defence, and ruled to move forward with the obstruction charge against the man who ruled the nation for 30 years.
Afte the judge announced the ruling, the defence brought to the judge's attention that he had not addressed the motions submitted by the state. When the judge ignored this and proceeded to annouce the date of the next hearing, the prosecution also called out the court's failure to make a decision on their motions, especially to issue and order to keep the identities of their witnesses secret.
However, the judge continued to ignore this.
The next hearing in the case has been scheduled for May 24.
