Ahmed Faris Maumoon’s remand legitimacy has been questioned by his lawyer Maumoon Hameed, due to the same judge overseeing both his arrest warrant issuance and validation of his arrest.
The Dhiggaru constituency lawmaker, Maumoon was summoned to court for his remand hearing. He was stamped with a 15-day remand by the same Criminal Court judge who had issued an arrest warrant on his name; Hussain Shaheed.
While speaking to local media, Hameed noted the arrest warrant issued on Faris Maumoon violated the Criminal Procedure Act, and the warrant itself was illicit. However, the overseeing judge of the case was the same individual who signed on the arrest warrant in the first place, said Hameed.
Hameed pointed that the same judge overseen both an arrest warrant and the legitimacy of it would result in an oblique rule in favor of plaintiff – in usual cases.
“We are witnessing the same judge preceding both arrest warrant on Faris Maumoon as well as validating the warrant’s legitimacy, this would create a conflict in a legal perspective. We had filed to court over the warrant’s illegitimacy, we are claiming the warrant violated the Criminal Procedure Act. But if the same judge who signed the warrant is sitting to pass it as legit or illicit,” Hameed said.
Hameed also criticized the state of misleading facts over the case, which had included Prosecutor General claiming a criminal record on Faris Maumoon due to an ongoing case of him. Prosecutor General was lambasted for misdirecting a case fact, in attempts to extend Maumoon’s remand.
Hussain Shameem, the other representing lawyer of Faris Maumoon stressed that Prosecutor General had failed to state the grounds on the lawmaker’s exact involvement in the attempts to overthrow the government. PG had dodged the question by stating the offense was relatively new and the incident took place back in May 2017, however PG had failed to answer the exact date of incident.
Furthermore, Shameem noted that upon questioned, Police had confirmed they had not discovered any evidence or documents ascertaining Maumoon’s involvement in the alleged attempt to overthrow the government. Shameem noted the only base authorities had against his client was the discreet witness testimony.
Shameem had also shown concern on court’s insistence on keeping Faris Maumoon’s trial without addressing for the reasons behind it – which according to Maldives Constitution is a right individuals can claim for.
