Former Managing Director of Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation (MMPRC) Abdulla Ziyath has told the Criminal Court that V. Aarah was leased to former Felidhoo MP Yoosuf Naeem on the orders of former President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayyoom.
Ziyath testified against Yameen and Yoosuf Naeem at a hearing held Tuesday in the trial against them in connection with corruption involved in the leasing of Aarah.
In his testimony, Ziyath said the transaction was conducted at Yameen's behest. Ziyath said he received Yamee's instructions through the then Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb. He also said that Yoosuf Naeem had told him that he gave USD 1 million to President Yameen.
Ziyath said after discussions with Adeeb, the island was initially planned to be leased for USD 5 million. However, as per President Yameen's orders, the agreement was signed to lease the island for USD 2 million, he said. After the agreement signing, Ziyath went back to his office, where Yoosuf Naeem told him in Adeeb's presence that President Yameen would be very happy [with the deal] and that he had given him USD 1 million.
Ziyath said there are predetermined policies and formulas in place for the lease of islands. The price for the Aarah lease was initially fixed under these policies, but the price was later lowered more than the standard prices on Yameen's orders, he said.
Responding to some questions from the defense, Ziyath said he had no plea agreements with the State to provide testimonies and that he had not been given any concessions or benefits to doing so.
Debate on Ziyath's agreement with the State
Before beginning Tuesday's hearing, the defense asked the prosecution to share their plea agreement with Ziyath. Yoosuf Naeem's defense lawyer Hamza Latheef raised an objection over an article published by a local newspaper regarding an agreement between the prosecution and Ziyath.
Hamza said a plea agreement could only be made with a person under criminal procedure if he confesses to the crime during the investigation. However, in Ziyath's case, the agreement was made after several stages of the trial. The article in question mentioned that Ziyath was not cooperating with the ongoing investigations into the case, Hamza said.
Hamza said the article raises serious questions about the agreement between the state and Ziyath and noted that both Ziyath and Adeeb, who is also a witness, are receiving extraordinary benefits and concessions. Although the pair have been convicted of fraud, the prosecution is not trying to recover any assets from them, he noted.
Hamza said the prosecution had made an unusual agreement with Ziyath, and there was a possibility of Ziyath lying under oath as he received benefits. Therefore, Hamza asked that Ziyath and Adeeb are questioned after the agreement is shared and discussed with the defense. If their testimony is not taken accordingly, a bad impression may be created about the accused, he said.
Yameen’s defense counsel, Dr. Mohamed Jameel, supported Hamza's concerns. However, the prosecution said the court could not act on the defense's request based on an article published in a newspaper without checking its credibility. The prosecution noted that the defense had the opportunity to submit evidence in the preliminary stage and that certain evidence are no longer admissible.
"The prosecution does not believe that an objection can be raised in relation to evidence at this stage unless new circumstances arise," the prosecution said.
The prosecution further said that it had no agreement with Ziyath in this case and said Ziyath was not given any concessions or illegal benefits.
After a lengthy debate, Chief Justice Ahmed Shakeel decided to continue taking evidence. The judge said the trial was not being conducted following an article in a newspaper and that it should have no effect on the trial. There is no need to consider whether the agreement is valid in this case, and the judges who heard the cases in the past have done so, he noted. The judge added that he would take into account the decisions of the higher courts regarding the integrity of the witnesses.
The opportunity to question Ziyath was waived by Yoosuf Naeem's lawyer. Defense counsel Hamza said as he had not been given the opportunity to ask questions about the agreement and as the agreement had not been shared, he did not believe Ziyath would answer any questions he was asked on his own accord.
