Supreme Court overturns denial of anonymous testimony of intel officers

The Supreme Court has overturned a High Court ruling and ordered the Criminal Court to reconsider the state’s request to allow police intelligence officers to testify using voice-distortion in a terrorism-related case.

The ruling was delivered last week following an appeal filed by the Prosecutor General’s Office.

The case concerns charges filed by the state against several individuals under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The allegations include attempting to travel to participate in war, possessing documents supporting terrorist organisations, and plotting acts of terrorism.

The defendants in the case are Ibrahim Wisam, Finifenmaage, S. Maradhoofeydhoo, Sausan Rasheed, Hithahfinivaage, GDh. Nadella, and Abdul Nasir/Abdulla Huvairis Bin Mohamed, M. Achieve.

To support its case, the state asked the Criminal Court to issue an order permitting police intelligence officers who prepared intelligence reports and conducted analyses of phones and electronic devices to testify with their voices distorted in order to protect their identities. Both the Criminal Court and the High Court initially rejected the request, stating that the state had failed to establish a specific, individual threat against the officers concerned.

In its ruling, authored by Justice Hussain Shaheed and supported by Justice Ali Rasheed Hussain and Justice Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim, the Supreme Court outlined key considerations concerning the interpretation of potential threats and the balancing of public interest.

The justices noted that establishing a "likelihood of danger" under the Criminal Procedure Act does not require evidence of previous harm or specific threats. The court emphasised that the nature of intelligence work itself is sufficient to establish a collective risk to officers engaged in such duties.

The Supreme Court further stated that when determining whether witness anonymity should be granted, courts must consider not only individual risks but also the broader public interest in protecting national security systems and maintaining the confidentiality of intelligence operations. The judges also stressed the importance of assessing the extent to which the requested measure—in this case, voice distortion alone—could affect the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled to quash the High Court’s decision. The case has been resent to the Criminal Court for a fresh ruling on the witness protection order, in accordance with the legal principles established in the Supreme Court’s judgment.