Court decides against hearing testimony from 3 anonymous witnesses

Supreme Court has decided against hearing the testimony of three anonymous witnesses in the petition filed by President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom to nullify the results of the recent presidential elections.

Starting the hearing this Tuesday morning, Chief Justice announce the Supreme Court bench’s decision not to hear testimony from the three anonymous witnesses put forward by Yameen was unanimous. The three witnesses were put forward to provide testimony on the rings which can be used to write on paper and pens with disappearing ink which Yameen alleges was used to rig the elections.

The decision by the court concludes the hearings in the case with only the ruling left to be announced.

During the hearing this Tuesday, the three parties involved in the case delivered their closing statements.

The first closing statement was delivered by Yameen’s legal representative, former High Court judge Abbas Shareef. He repeated the allegations raised by Yameen and said the EC acted in violation of the Constitution and Supreme Court guidelines.

Abbas also challenged the argument by the EC that the petition filed by Yameen is a criminal case. He said the petition is not a criminal case, but a constitutional case arising from violation of due process.

Countering the argument by EC that the results of an election can only be nullified under the Elections Act if any transgression took place which could affect the outcome of the election, Abbas said the petition wasn’t filed to nullify the presidential elections under the Elections Act, but to nullify the results of the election under the Constitution as the vote had been rigged.

Abbas said that the legal team has submitted evidence to prove Yameen had reclaimed his right to file a petition regarding the results of the election, even though the opposing councils argued Yameen had surrendered the right to file a petition to contest the results.

He said that if the opposition coalition had the right to claim the elections was free and fair after initially claiming otherwise, Yameen had the same right to change his opinion.

He said that passing on investigate claims the vote was rigged was same as passing on verifying whether the rights of the Maldivian people have been violated. He said Yameen did not file the petition to for self-interest, but for the interest of the Maldivian people.

He requested the Supreme Court not to make any decision without a thorough probe into the issue. And listed a number of allegations which he said should be investigated. They include:

• Whether or not rings which could be used to right on paper and pens with ink which could disappear was used
• Whether a different type of ballot paper was used to rig the vote
• Whether envelopes used to store ballot paper was unsealed
• The state of security at rooms used to store the ballot papers
• What three people who weren’t on the voter’s list did inside the room used to store ballot papers
• Whether ballot papers had all the security features
• Whether any ballot paper had been ticked twice
• Whether two different types of ink were used if ballot papers were ticked twice
• Whether there were any blank ballot papers
• Investigation into the bidding process for print of ballot papers
• Any direct decision made by the Board of Directors at M7 Printers on printing the ballot papers
• Whether erasers were used on ballot papers
• Whether any re-registration form was rejected and shredded

Abbas requested the Supreme Court to order Maldives National Defense Force and Maldives Police Service to investigate the allegations.

Meanwhile, legal representative of the Elections Commission, Attorney Hussain Shameem, during his closing statement focused on the argument that the petition was based on hearsay. And that hearsay cannot be used to disprove facts.

And the legal representative of opposition coalition, Attorney Hisaan Hussain said Yameen’s legal representatives had attempted to overturn the burden of proof. She repeatedly that Yameen’s legal representatives had failed to produce any evidence to support his claims.