Crime

Leaked testimonies speak of bent judges and bribery

Police have confirmed the testimonies are authentic and are investigating the leaks.

02 May 2018, 9:00 AM
Secret witness testimonies related to the terror trials of former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, his son Faris and two top judges have been leaked on Twitter. Police have confirmed the testimonies are authentic and are investigating the leaks. Following are translations of the testimonies.   
Shiyam Ibrahim (former supporter of ex-president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom): I have been a Gayoom supporter since 2007 and am friends with the Gayoom family. Yumna Maumoon’s husband Nadheem calls and informs me whenever there is a Gayoom event. I attend these events and I am very close to Gayoom so I also attend meetings with him. I also manage security at Endherimaage [Gayoom residence] when I am there. I know those who come and go to meet Gayoom and his family. I am aware of their political discussions and meetings. I remain a Gayoom supporter.
Police Sergeant Mohamed Asif: On February 1 2018 around 9 pm, my squad was ordered to go near the Maldivian Democratic Party campaign hall to clear the streets of protesters and ease traffic. We were later divided into three groups and sent to three different areas around the campaign hall. At around 915 pm, I heard about the Supreme Court order while we were monitoring the area. Later Inspector of Police Shaif Hussain was leading a group towards us and charged right through the police shields of the officers who were on duty. They tried to assault us but we were able to control them and the group left immediately.
Civil Court Judge Mohamed Haleem: I have been working at the civil court for the past three years and the court’s senior judge, Abdulla Ali, has always advised me to issue rulings as directed by Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and Justice Ali Hameed. In the case concerning the ownership of Haveeru News, Ali took me to the Supreme Court, with all the case files and the verdict I had written, to discuss it with Hameed. He told me that the discussion was taking place on behalf of Saeed. Then he changed the verdict and told me to issue the new verdict. The initial ruling that I wrote does not have any part related to the employees of Haveeru. It was Hameed who added a part that restricted Haveeru staff from working in any media outlet. After I issued a ruling on a case related to the PPM (Progressive Party of Maldives) in 2016, Hameed and Saeed began to directly contact me.

Become a member

Get full access to our archive and personalise your experience.


Already a member?

Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!

No comments yet. Be the first to join the conversation!

Join the Conversation

Sign in to share your thoughts under an alias and take part in the discussion. Independent journalism thrives on open, respectful debate — your voice matters.

Support independent journalism