The court has refused to accept all 12 points made by South Mahchangolhi Constituency MP Abdulla Sinan at his preliminary hearing regarding the terrorism-related charges against him.

Sinan was charged over his alleged involvement in the controversial Supreme Court ruling on February 1 which ordered the release of political prisoners and reinstatement of opposition MPs.

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, Sinan’s attorney Nooruh Salam Abubakur said that while the charges indicate that the February 1 ruling was unlawful, the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on the matter did not nullify the one on February 1. Therefore, dragging the issue into court means doubting a judge’s verdict, which is illegal.

In response, the state prosecutor said that their case is not to confirm the legitimacy of the Supreme Court ruling, and that the court is also proceeding with other cases regarding the alleged ill intent of Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and Justice Ali Hameed before they issued the ruling. The prosecutor noted that the case is to prosecute all those who were behind the ruling.

The defense noted that the proper procedure was not followed before sending the case for prosecution. Attorney Nooruh Salam also said that the charges do not fit into the anti-terrorism laws and so Sinan should have been charged under the penal code. He also noted that the prosecution did not specify the date and time on which Sinan had committed the crime.

The state prosecutor said that proper procedure was followed and that Sinan had been committing the crime from 2017 onwards.

It was also noted that the prosecution form did not have a signature from the prosecutor general, which is required. The prosecutor said that a circular was sent to all the courts indicating that the case has the prosecutor general’s approval, and that this procedure is now permitted by the upper courts.

The defense also requested that one of a secret testimony not be taken from one of the state’s witnesses, since the witness was involved in a case of MP Faris Maumoon in which he, in a police investigation, claimed that Faris had offered him a bribe, but then swore in court that Faris did not in fact offer him any bribe. Due to this reason, his testimony is not important, said the defense, adding that the witness is to be used to confirm whether Sinan had accepted bribes, which is unrelated to terrorism.

In response, the prosecutor said that the defense should not be able to know the identity of their secret witness and therefore will not respond to any points made by the defense in which they specify a particular person as their secret witness. He also said that Sinan had accepted bribes to commit a terrorist act.

The defense requested that the audio and video evidence be made available to them, to which the prosecution said that all the relevant case documents have been handed over to them. However, the prosecution said that they will be unable to provide information on the secret witnesses but that the defense will be able to question them.

After the back and forth, presiding judge Ahmed Hailam refused all 12 points put forth by the defense for similar reasons given by the prosecution.

The judge also refused to ease Sinan’s stay in prison for the rest of his trial.