Courts cannot make changes to claims: High Court

High Court has ruled that courts do not have the authority to make changes to claims made against suspects.

This ruling was issued last Wednesday after investigation of the case appealed by Prosecutor General’s Office, when Civil Court ruled that Ibrahim Suhail of Male’ Municipality Special Registry was not guilty of adultery, a case filed against him on 25 February 2009.

Prosecutor General had accused Suhail of adultery.

A point noted by Prosecutor General’s Office regarding the decision made by the Civil Court states that Suhail had denied in court his confession to adultery during the investigation; but admitted in court to having been involved in sexual misconduct.

Civil Court had neglected this point when issuing their ruling, which thereby invalidates the ruling.They also said that making charges against civil offences, changes to these charges, and basis of claim are the responsibility and authority of the Prosecutor General’s Office. As such, if a judge changes the basis of claim of a case without being requested to do so by the Prosecutor General, that would mean the judge has carried out the duty of the prosecutor general.

Changes of this manner are not constitutional.

Moreover, the accused can only defend himself if he is aware of the charges made against him; if a judge issues a ruling on a case based on his own initiative, it impedes the defendant’s right to understand the accusations made against him, and defend himself.

The judges who presided over this case were Abbas Shareef, Ali Sameer and Abdul Raoof Ibrahim.

However, when Ali Razeen of M. Blue lake lodge and Ibrahim Naufal of M. Reyalivaage were charged with murder by Prosecutor General’s Office in 2010 following the death of Abdullah Farhad of Lilymaage, S. Hulhudhoo; Civil Court had said in its ruling issued on 22 November 2010 that High Court had also, on previous occasions, changed the basis of claims.

Civil Court had claimed that the Prosecutor General’s Office’s description of the charges were incorrect, and ruled that the suspects were charged with assault and sentenced them to prison for four years.

“The charge made against these two people by the state is assault of the victim Farhad, a crime of which they were proven guilty. As the state’s description of the claims were incorrect, it would be unjust to decide that they are not guilty any crime; based on similar cases in the past, where basis of claims have been changed by the judge if he believes the state’s description is wrong; and because the Maldives High Court has also acted in this manner on previous occasions, it is decided that the correct charge against Ali Razeen and Ibrahim Naufal is assault and that they are found guilty of this crime.

They are sentenced to four years in prison according to Article 50 of the Penal Code,” reads the sentence issued by Civil Court in 2010 for two people charged with murder.