High Court ruling leads to cop’s remand after perjury

A police officer, Mohamed Sajidh, who gave false testimony during a trial, claiming he had not taken the oath of office, has been rearrested under the High Court's directive.

Sajidh's initial arrest occurred following the discovery of illicit drugs during a raid in G.Dh. Thinadhoo. This raid was prompted by suspicions of e-cigarette possession. Sajidh, who had been serving as a special police constable at Thinadhoo Police Station since May 7th of this year, was suspended subsequent to his arrest.

During the investigation, a search of Sajidh’s residence and motorbike uncovered a significant quantity of tobacco, nanosticks, vapes, vape cartridges, and 191.92 grams of substances suspected to be drugs.

Despite his arrest in connection with these discoveries, the Thinadhoo Magistrate Court ordered Sajidh's release during the remand hearing, citing that the arrest had been made under an incorrect court order.

The prosecution subsequently appealed the Thinadhoo Magistrate Court’s decision to the High Court. During the High Court appeal, Sajidh's lawyer argued that his client had not taken an oath as a police officer. However, the High Court declared his bail illegal and ordered his return to custody.

Sun has learned that the case was re-filed in accordance with the High Court order, and the court has since ordered Sajidh to be remanded in custody for 20 days.

The High Court's judgment emphasized the need to enhance state policies and procedures to uphold public trust, particularly concerning the legal implications of signing and adhering to the oath of office, based on arguments presented during the trial regarding the swearing-in process.

The unanimous verdict from the three-judge bench stated, "At the trial, he spoke as if he did not think there was anything wrong with taking monetary remuneration for a post without taking an oath. This is not what should happen to oaths sworn with the name of the Lord, or the way anyone should speak regarding such an oath. The allegations made by the prosecution in relation to Sections 512 and 533 of the penal code is given brevity as it is found that he had signed the oath affidavit."