Friday
27th Dec 2024
Dhivehi Edition
The former President Yameen Abdul Gayyoom has plead not guilty to the new charges of accepting bribes and money laundering laid against him by the State, according to the head of the former President’s legal team, Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.
In yesterday’s hearing, the former President had plead that he was not guilty for either of the two new charges laid against him by the State. He said that his lawyer, Dr Jameel, would provide the reasons to his plea.
Selectivee Prosecution and Political Bias
The primary reason for the former President’s plea of not guilty was that he had not committed any of the crimes that the Prosecutor General’s Office accuse him of committing. Dr Jameel said that the accusations were “a mockery of justice”, a well-organized and systematically executed set of “politically-motivated” accusations.
Dr Jameel stressed that the accusations were concocted by the government as “revenge” for the work that the former President had done to combat corruption during his presidential term of 2013 to 2018.
If there are several individuals who may have been suspects in one case, explained Dr Jameel, to charge only one or some of those individuals was a form of “selective prosecution”.
Dr Jameel said several of the parliamentarians who had voted to approve Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem to his post would have been incriminated by the MMPRC case. However, none of them have been charged with any crime.
Dr Jameel further argued that the serial charges being laid against the former President was in violation of the Constitutionally-mandated principle of equality. He argued that the Prosecutor General was at the bidding of politicians.
Dr Jameel stressed that the accusations were concocted by the government as “revenge” for the work that the former President had done to combat corruption during his presidential term of 2013 to 2018.
If there are several individuals who may have been suspects in one case, explained Dr Jameel, to charge only one or some of those individuals was a form of “selective prosecution”.
Dr Jameel said several of the parliamentarians who had voted to approve Prosecutor General Hussain Shameem to his post would have been incriminated by the MMPRC case. However, none of them have been charged with any crime.
Dr Jameel further argued that the serial charges being laid against the former President was in violation of the Constitutionally-mandated principle of equality. He argued that the Prosecutor General was at the bidding of politicians.
Case Based on Assumption, Not Fact
Although the basis of the State’s bribery case happens to be an alleged bribe paid to the former President by another party, Ahmed “Kurik” Riza, Dr Jameel stated that the evidence provided by the State showed that there was no record of any transactions involving Riza with regard to the purchase of Fuggiri Resort.
Also, Dr Jameel noted that both Riza and the former President deny that any bribes had been paid.
Dr Jameel said that the record showed that Riza had no involvement in the sale of R. Fuggiri, and that the transaction had been done through a law firm, Shah & Co. He also noted that Riza’s testimony showed that the transaction between Riza and Sun Construction, and the transactions between Sun Construction and the former President, were two completely separate transactions.
What had transpired between the former President and the company had been a currency exchange, stated Dr Jameel. He said that as this was to be clearly seen from the paperwork, it was clear that the State’s charge of money-laundering was not based on fact or evidence but rather on assumption.
As the former President had made a transaction of United States dollars with Sun Construction, and though the State claimed that the transaction had been an act of money-laundering, Dr Jameel showed that the value the State accuses the former President of having received as a bribe does was not equal to the value of the funds involved in the transaction between the former President and Sun Construction. He also argued that there was no law that prohibited a sitting president from engaging in foreign currency exchanges.
Also, Dr Jameel noted that both Riza and the former President deny that any bribes had been paid.
Dr Jameel said that the record showed that Riza had no involvement in the sale of R. Fuggiri, and that the transaction had been done through a law firm, Shah & Co. He also noted that Riza’s testimony showed that the transaction between Riza and Sun Construction, and the transactions between Sun Construction and the former President, were two completely separate transactions.
What had transpired between the former President and the company had been a currency exchange, stated Dr Jameel. He said that as this was to be clearly seen from the paperwork, it was clear that the State’s charge of money-laundering was not based on fact or evidence but rather on assumption.
As the former President had made a transaction of United States dollars with Sun Construction, and though the State claimed that the transaction had been an act of money-laundering, Dr Jameel showed that the value the State accuses the former President of having received as a bribe does was not equal to the value of the funds involved in the transaction between the former President and Sun Construction. He also argued that there was no law that prohibited a sitting president from engaging in foreign currency exchanges.
Adeeb and Ziyath’s Tainted Testimony
Dr Jameel claimed that the testimony of neither former Vice President Ahmed Adeeb, nor MMPRC Managing Director Abdulla Ziyath could be accepted in the case.
He argued that their testimony had been “manufactured through co-operation agreements and other benefits”, and that it could not be said that the witnesses had no conflicts of interest with regard to the outcome of the case.
Dr Jameel argued that the only thread that connected the funds under scrutiny and the MMPRC was their testimony.
He further stated that both witnesses were personal enemies of the former President, and their testimony could therefore not be accepted against him as per the principles Islamic Shariah and also as per the Supreme Court.
Dr Jameel said that the case had been “fabricated” based on the testimony of Adeeb and Ziyath.
Dr Jameel concluded his summary of the explanation as to why the defendant plead not guilty to the charge.
Dr Jameel clarified that although the judge who had previously presided over the proceedings had termed the charges to be clear, neither the defendant nor his legal team had found them so. He also said that paperwork that was required foe the defence had not yet been received. He also said that they had appealed the decision of the Criminal Court regarding the paperwork at the High Court.
The hearing was concluded with a second hearing to be set in the first ten days of February. Both the State and the defendant would have the opportunity to call witnesses to testify, said the presiding Judge Ahmed Shakeel.
He argued that their testimony had been “manufactured through co-operation agreements and other benefits”, and that it could not be said that the witnesses had no conflicts of interest with regard to the outcome of the case.
Dr Jameel argued that the only thread that connected the funds under scrutiny and the MMPRC was their testimony.
He further stated that both witnesses were personal enemies of the former President, and their testimony could therefore not be accepted against him as per the principles Islamic Shariah and also as per the Supreme Court.
Dr Jameel said that the case had been “fabricated” based on the testimony of Adeeb and Ziyath.
Dr Jameel concluded his summary of the explanation as to why the defendant plead not guilty to the charge.
Dr Jameel clarified that although the judge who had previously presided over the proceedings had termed the charges to be clear, neither the defendant nor his legal team had found them so. He also said that paperwork that was required foe the defence had not yet been received. He also said that they had appealed the decision of the Criminal Court regarding the paperwork at the High Court.
The hearing was concluded with a second hearing to be set in the first ten days of February. Both the State and the defendant would have the opportunity to call witnesses to testify, said the presiding Judge Ahmed Shakeel.