State submits 2 anonymous witnesses in Faris identity theft trial

State prosecution has submitted testimony of two anonymous witnesses as evidence in the case against Dhiggaru MP Ahmed Faris Maumoon for identity theft.

In the hearing held at Criminal Court at 11:30 am this Sunday, the State submitted testimony of two anonymous witnesses, a Civil Court ruling, a letter by Elections Commission, and a letter sent to the police by Deputy Leader of Progressive Party of Maldives, Abdul Raheem Abdulla.

Faris’ attorney, Maumoon Hameed raised a procedural motion protesting against the State’s submission of the two anonymous witnesses. He protested that according to the Criminal Procedure Act, submission of anonymous witnesses needed to be disclosed pre-trial.

The State prosecution said the identities of the two witnesses needed to be protected as they risked great financial loss if their identities were discovered.

The prosecution said the two witnesses had been present during the press conference held at Mukai Suits on March 12, 2017, and could prove Faris had misrepresented himself as a member of PPM.

In response to protest by Faris’ attorney, Judge Ibrahim Ali said a decision on whether the testimony would be anonymous or not would be decided during the testimony hearing.

Additional evidence submitted by the State in the case includes the Civil Court ruling granting management of PPM to President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom, the letter by Elections Commission informing Faris was no longer a member of PPM, and the letter by Abdul Raheem Abdulla to the police complaining Faris used PPM’s flag and logo in the press conference of March 12 without its permission.

Defense attorney Maumoon Hameed also contested the submission of the letter by Abdul Raheem Abdulla to the police and the letter by Elections Commission. He protested that though Abdul Raheem Abdulla had sent the letter as Deputy Leader of PPM, he had been relieved of the position on October 15, 2016, and that the letter was therefore inadmissible.

He also protested that Elections Commission’s letter was also inadmissible as the decision to remove Faris from PPM was made against his wishes.

During the previous hearing, attorney Maumoon Hameed had raised a procedural motion saying the trial cannot be continued as Supreme Court had not complied the regulations it needs to under the Criminal Procedure Act.

In response to the motion, the judge said it cannot be claimed the trial was being held in violation of the Criminal Procedure Act as there had been no order by a higher court to halt the trial.

The defense has been given three days to submit evidence. The judge said the court will hear witness testimony during the next hearing, but did not announce a date for the next hearing.