Faris bribery hearing cancelled after State submits new evidence

This Tuesday’s preliminary hearing in the bribery case against Dhiggaru MP Ahmed Faris Maumoon has been cancelled at his request after the State prosecution submitted a new piece of evidence.

The hearing, which began at Criminal Court at 10 am this Tuesday was cancelled after Faris requested more time for his attorneys to discuss a new piece of evidence submitted by the State prosecution.

Faris is accused of offering a bribe to a fellow parliamentarian. Preliminary hearings are being held to address to address procedural issues before the trial officially begins.

It has been revealed that the State’s anonymous witness in the case is the parliamentarian Faris is accused of offering the bribe to. The new piece of evidence submitted is the document stating the reason why the identity of the State witness is being protected.

WHAT THE STATE HOPES TO PROVE VIA THE WITNESS:

- The witness told Ahmed Shafiu from Sweetflower in L. Fonadhoo that the campaign for local election can only be run if the party funds the campaign. And that Shafiu said it can be arranged, and that the witness need only sign a form.

- Shafiu said the witness needs to sign the petition for Speaker of People’s Majlis, Abdulla Maseeh Mohamed’s impeachment.

- The witness went to a house in Koarikendi Magu of Male’ City where he met Faris, and where he signed a piece of paper with some people’s signature presented to him by Faris.

- Shafiu handed the witness money, which he said was from Faris.

Faris’ attorneys have contested the State’s decision to hide the identity of the witness. While lead State prosecutor in the case, Aishath Mohamed said the identity of the witness needed to be protected as he could be potentially influenced, otherwise.

The lead defense attorney, Maumoon Hameed argued that the State prosecution wasn’t clear on how the witness, who Faris is accused of offering a briber to, could be influenced. He said hiding the identity of the witness left room for perjury, and infringed on the defense’s right to counter the testimony.

Prosecutor Aishath Mohamed countered that it was common practice by the courts to protect the identity of witnesses in such cases, and that the defense would still have the right to cross-examine the witness.