State admits to making mistake at first appeal hearing in ex-VP's embezzlement case

The state has admitted that the remand requests, at both the Criminal and Supreme Courts, to remand former Vice President Ahmed Adeeb were based on the same issue.

However, the state’s attorney has said otherwise at the first hearing in the state’s appeal case against the former VP at the Supreme Court.

While Chief Justice Dr. Ahmed Abdulla had noted that the state had sent a letter to the court clarifying its mistake, the state’s attorney said that the mistake was made because they did not have the lower court order.

The court concluded Tuesday’s hearing after giving Adeeb time to appoint a lawyer; he represented himself at the first hearing.

At this hearing, the state once again sought to keep the former VP in remand until the trial concluded, noting that he is threat to society and a flight risk. It added that Adeeb had attempted flee while his passport was withheld, emphasizing that this “has been confirmed.”

Further noting that the Criminal Court order states to keep him detained in a custodial jail, the state’s attorney said that it is seeking to keep him in a remand jail until the trial concludes.

However, his defence lawyer Mohamed Ismail objected that seeking an additional remand order while he is currently under remand “infringes his rights as well as the appeal process.”

He further questioned on how the same individual be kept at both custodial and remand jails “at the same time.”

Further noting that Supreme Court had upheld previous High Court orders to transfer him to transfer him to house arrest and grant him medical leave, Ismail asked to continue to follow these orders and transfer him back to house arrest.

While Adeeb was granted medical leave in June, his lawyer claimed that he was not given all the required treatment at the time.

Following this, the chief justice inquired on whether the High Court order still stands, to which the defence responded that “it does.”

Further noting that a court is yet to rule that Adeeb’s a flight risk, the lawyer asked to transfer him to house arrest. He noted that correctional officers were stationed at residence.

However, the state argued that him trying to leave the country while the passport is withheld proves his intent to flee, and emphasized that the High Court order mentioned by the defence was issued over a different matter.

Further highlighting that a decision on his remand will not affect the previous one, the state noted that Adeeb was granted medical leave and that they will continue to provide him the required medical attention.

While the High Court overturned an eight-year conviction against Adeeb in May, after being found guilty of embezzling funds owed to the state as the acquisition cost of Maabinhuraa in Lhaviyani atoll into his personal account, the state appealed the decision at the country’s top court in June.

The appeal case filed at the Supreme Court also sought to arrest and remand him, as well as to withhold Adeeb’s passport; while the court had only issued an order to withhold his passport, the court has since said that it did not issue an arrest warrant as Adeeb was serving a sentence at the time of request and that no other case filed after the completion of this sentence.

The order to withhold Adeeb’s passport was issued while he was in India after being granted medical leave. While he returned to the country on July 7, he was caught while attempting to flee from authorities on August 1. He was returned to the country on Sunday, and has been issued a 15-day remand.