High Court to conclude Faris' sentence appeal case within the week

The High Court presiding over Dhiggaru MP and former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s son, Faris Maumoon’s appeal case has said that they will conclude the case within the week.

The appeal was filed after Faris was issued a prison sentence of four months and 24 days on June 27 over identity fraud for the unauthorized use of the ruling party's flag and logo.

Faris was found guilty of using the flag and logo of the ruling party at a joint press conference held by the opposition coalition parties on 22nd of March 2017.

Speaking at the appeal hearing on Sunday, presiding judge Mohamed Faisal said that the judges will try to conclude the case within the week as the appeal has been pending at the court for many days.

Judges presiding over the case include Faisal, Hassan Ali, and Chief Judge Shujau Usman.

At the appeal hearing on Sunday, the lawmaker’s defense attorneys highlighted 27 points in their client’s defense.

However, the allocated time of one hour was up before the lawyers could declare all of the points. At conclusion of the hearing, presiding judge Faisal had announced that another hearing will be held on a date that will be announced later.

In Faris’s defense, lawyers noted articles 17 and 20 of the constitution which states that everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms without discrimination of “any kind” and that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection as well as the equal benefit of the law. Lawyers also noted that others who were not members of PPM had used the party’s flag and logo during the local council election.

Faris' attornies also stated that the case was filed against him by PPM’s PG member Abdul Raheem Abdulla, who does not have the right to file the complaint, as he was dismissed from the party’s Vice President’s post at the time.

They also noted that some of the defence witnesses had not been presented during the trial and that there were discrepancies and fabrications in the testimonies presented by the state. Defense attorneys further stressed that they were not given the adequate opportunity to present testimonies in Faris’s defense and that some of the state testimonies were taken behind closed door, with some of their documented evidence being hidden as well.

The State had presented three secret witnesses, a letter from the Elections Commission confirming Faris’s dismissal from the party as well as a recording which proves that the lawmaker had used the ruling party’s flag and logo at a press conference.

Faris had in his defence presented 47 witnesses as well as 27 documented evidence to the court. However, the court had taken testimonies from just six of the 47 witnesses.

Pending trials against him include bribery for allegedly offering bribes to a fellow parliamentarian who has since revoked his accusation, following which hearings in the case had been halted. Faris is also on trial over terrorism-related charges for allegedly conspiring to overthrow the government.