Appeal over child’s death resumes as ruling party MPs’ company contests liability
Rawshan Jian’s family is still waiting nearly eight years later.

Artwork: Dosain
1 hour ago
Anara Naeem sat in the viewing booth of the High Court as a lawyer for two Bangladeshi doctors asked judges to restore damages over the death of their eight-year-old daughter.
Rawshan Jian was killed in December 2018 when a cement bag fell from a W Construction building site in Malé.
Anara and her husband Adam Shafeeq are among W Construction's shareholders. Both are members of the ruling People's National Congress. Shafeeq was previously charged with negligence as the company's managing director at the time. But he was acquitted. He won Anara's former Makunudhoo seat in parliament in 2024. Anara now represents the Huraa constituency after returning to the Majlis in the same election.
In 2021, the Civil Court found W Construction vicariously liable in causing Jian’s death. The company was ordered to pay MVR4.56 million (US$295,720) in damages. Both Jian's parents and W Construction appealed the judgment. The family challenged the court's reduction to their claim of MVR17.5 million. W Construction maintains it could not be held liable.
Stalled appeal
The appeal resumed in August after years of delays. Anara was present in court when in-person hearings resumed after the pandemic. She was seen in the viewing booth at last week's hearing when the family's lawyer Mariyam Shunana argued against the lower court's decision to reduce the damages.
Hearings first began in November 2022 after the Supreme Court ordered the High Court to overlook the appeal being filed past the deadline as the plaintiff had not received the Civil Court ruling in time.
The appellate court's initial bench comprised of Judges Mohamed Faisal, Mohamed Niyaz and Huzaifa Mohamed. The first hearing started online but was cut short because of poor internet speeds at W Construction offices. The second hearing was held in January 2023 via audio only. The hearings resumed in person in February 2025 but remained stalled for several months.
When hearings resumed in August this year, only Huzaifa remained from the original bench. Judges Abdul Rauf Ibrahim and Ismail Shafeeu took the place of Faisal and Niyaz.
Rauf contested the 2024 parliamentary elections as a candidate of the ruling party. He was previously a High Court judge. Rauf resigned in May 2022 after the Judicial Service Commission recommended dismissal on the grounds of breaching the constitution and judges' code of conduct in accepting a government flat at a special rate.
Rauf and Shafeeu had been appointed to the court in February after Niyaz retired and Faisal resigned following investigations by the JSC.
A judge can only be removed if parliament approves a recommendation by the JSC based on a finding of gross incompetence or misconduct. A two-thirds majority of members presenting and voting is required for impeachment. With its supermajority of more than 70 seats in the 93-member house, the PNC holds well above that threshold.
The JSC is a 10-member watchdog body for the judiciary. Its members include the speaker as well as an MP and a member of the public appointed by the Majlis.
From June 2024 to August 2025, MP Anara was deputy chair of parliament's judiciary committee, which exercises oversight over the JSC and reviews the commission's recommendations.
Anara did not respond to questions about her attendance at the hearings.
Vicariously liable
At 10:34am on 16 December 2018, Rawshan Jian was walking on the pavement with her mother when the cement bag fell on her. Horrific video footage of the accident sparked public outrage. It prompted an inspection of all construction sites in the capital and its suburbs.
Rawshan was the daughter of Farzana Hussain and Mohamed Kamaludeen Javeed, two Bangladeshi doctors who were working at the Faafu Nilandhoo health centre. The family was in the capital during their annual holiday.
The bag fell from the fifth floor of Maafannu Nalahiya Manzil, a 10-storey building under construction by W Construction. The torn sack fell through a hole in the safety net while workers were lifting cement bags to the ninth floor. She died the next day while receiving treatment for injuries at the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital.
In October 2019, three Indian men and a Maldivian man were convicted on criminal charges in relation to her death.
Indian national Rajjav Ali was sentenced to six years in prison for reckless manslaughter. He had operated the winch used to hoist the cement bag to the ninth floor while the designated winch operator was on break. He did not exercise caution to the risk posed to pedestrians walking below. The area was not protected from cement bags raised through a gap in the protective fence.
Muthumani Ramachandhuran was imprisoned for three years and two months. As the worker who helped Rajjav Ali unload the cement bags raised to the ninth floor, he was found guilty as an accomplice to reckless manslaughter. Kesharalil Chauhan and Glum Mahad, who were loading the cement bags onto the lifting belt, were each fined MVR7,200 for failing to stop or warn Jian and for failing in their duty to aid a person in danger.
Moosa Hassan, the Maldivian site supervisor, was fined MVR115,200 for negligent homicide. The court found him negligent in ensuring protective measures for pedestrians at the site.
Shafeeq, then managing director W Construction, was acquitted on negligence charges after the court ruled he had no active involvement except signing the agreement for the construction project. At the time, former MP Anara Naeem argued in social media posts that company owners cannot be found criminally guilty for accidents caused by employees.
Separately, Jian’s parents filed a civil case claiming damages for a sum of MVR17.4 million as medical fees, loss of earning, aggravated damages for loss of filial consortium and pain and suffering caused in the loss of their daughter and exemplary damages.
The MVR4.5 million in damages granted by the court – which held W Construction vicariously liable in causing Jian’s death – included MVR42,318.67 as medical fees for Jian’s treatments, MVR1,290,361 as loss of earnings, MVR1,028,361 as aggravated damages in the form of filial or child consortium and MVR2,196,361 from pain and suffering.
The appeal
At the first hearings held in person last year, Judges Niyaz, Faisal and Huzaifa grilled W Construction lawyers over what they called the lack of clarity in their appeal points. The judges criticised the legal team for raising new arguments not made in the lower court.
Lawyers Ismail Mohamed and Imthiyaz Ali, who had been appointed after the appeal was submitted, questioned the basis for the Civil Court ordering compensation for pain and suffering based on United Kingdom’s JC guidelines. Any amount must either be derived from Islamic sharia or from a Maldivian law, regulation or guideline, they insisted. They also argued that the aggravated damages, including for pain and suffering, can only be taken in the form of and for the amounts taken as diya (blood money) under sharia.
The judges reprimanded the lawyers because their challenge over the application of JC guidelines had not been raised during the Civil Court trial.
When Imthiyaz said a judge could take it into account even if was not raised by the lawyers, Judge Huzaifa asked: "What is the role of a lawyer?"
After the new bench resumed hearings, the judges continued in the same manner over objections and procedural points that had not been raised before.
The reconstituted bench, however, granted permission to submit a new procedural objection. W Construction's lawyers argued that the High Court appeal had been re-submitted after the 10-day period ordered by the Supreme Court in February 2022.
Counting weekends, they argued that the normal date counting standards for judicial cases would not apply to a Supreme Court order.
Nearly eight years after she passed away, Rawshan Jian's parents are asking the High Court to restore their MVR17.4 million claim. W Construction is asking the court to overturn the ruling entirely. It is unclear when the next appeal hearing will be scheduled. Whichever way the High Court rules, the losing side can take the case to the Supreme Court.
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
Help us keep the news free and fearless
Give once
$
or
Become a memberfrom $5/month



