A first hearing took place at the high court on Wednesday in the appeal of prison sentences handed by the criminal court to former president Abdulla Yameen and former MP Yoosuf Naeem.
Yameen - who remains the presidential candidate of the opposition Progressive Party of Maldives and People’s National Congress coalition - was convicted of accepting and laundering a USD 1.1 million bribe to lease Vaavu Aarah island as part of the Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation (MMPRC) corruption scandal. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison on December 25, 2022.
The hearing began at 2:15 in the afternoon and ended around 4:20 in the evening. The court heard arguments from Yoosuf Naeem and rebuttals from the prosecution.
One point raised by Yoosuf Naeem was the criminal court’s acceptance of new evidence submitted by the prosecution to counter claims made by defence witnesses. The new evidence was submitted after the court heard witness testimony.
Naeem’s lawyer Hamza Latheef said the criminal procedures law does not specify how evidence for the purpose of negating the testimony of a witness could be submitted. An opportunity that was not in the law was granted to the state, he said.
Despite the prosecution’s case alleging undue influence by Yameen to lease Aarah to a company tied to Naeem, the president does not have such power or capacity, the defence lawyer argued.
The third point of appeal involved the half an hour period provided by the lower court to speak about the evidence. The period was insufficient, he said. The last point was the criminal court judge’s refusal to allow the defence to explain the reason for asking for a shorter prison term.
While four prosecutors were present on behalf of the state, they took turns to respond to each argument. On the first point, prosecutor Adam Amir said the rules for submitting new evidence include procedures for submitting evidence that is newly revealed or discovered.
On the argument that Yameen lacked the capacity to exert influence, prosecutor Ahmed Shafeeu said the president has the opportunity to influence the tourism ministry as he has the power to dismiss the tourism minister.
Responding to the argument concerning the sentence, prosecutor Eana Moosa said handing down the baseline sentence in the law to a person who was found guilty could not be called unjust.
Adjourning the hearing, judge Hassan Shafeeu, who was presiding in the three-judge panel, said Yoosuf Naeem would be allowed to respond to the prosecution at the next hearing.
It is expected that Yameen’s lawyers would be allowed to present their arguments after that.
The other judges on the high court bench are Huzaifa Mohamed and Mohamed Saleem.
The Aarah case
According to the charges raised by the state, Vaavu Aarah was transferred to the tourism ministry on August 9, 2015. A company called 2G Pvt Ltd with a 99 percent stake owned by the co-defendant Yoosuf Naeem was created on August 13, 2015.
On September 8, 2015, 99 percent of shares in 2G Pvt Ltd were sold to LA Resorts Pvt Ltd.
When the MMPRC handed over Aarah to 2G on September 9, 2015, LA Resorts gave a check of USD 1 million to the MMPRC as the island’s lease acquisition cost and a check of USD 1 million to Yoosuf Naeem.
On September 13, 2015, when the money was deposited to Yoosuf Naeem’s account, a check for USD 1 million from the account was given to president Yameen on September 15, 2015. Two days later, the money was deposited to an account opened under Yameen’s name at the HSBC Bank, according to the prosecution.
Both Yameen and Yoosuf Naeem pleaded not guilty to the charges. The transaction between them was a sale of US dollars for Dhivehi Rufiyaa, they said, claiming it was unrelated to the leasing of Aarah and denying any act of corruption.
