Subscription Form

Former President Yameen speaking in a rally - Photo: PNF

MALE : State prosecutors requested the Criminal Court to reject four oral witnesses and one documentary proof submitted by former President Abdulla Yameen during preliminary motions in the ongoing trial regarding the lease of Vaavu Aarah.

The prosecution alleges that USD 1 million deposited into Yameen’s personal bank account was a bribe paid by former lawmaker Yoosuf Naeem to secure the lease of Vaavu Aarah to 2G Private Limited. Yameen and Yoosuf Naeem maintain that the funds stemmed from a legitimate foreign currency exchange transaction, claiming that equivalent Maldivian Rufiyaa was delivered in bulk cash.

Prosecution Attorney Ahmed Shafeeu argued that under Article 47 of the Criminal Procedure Act, suspects who exercise their right to silence during police investigations cannot present previously undisclosed witnesses or evidence in court. The prosecution argued that Yameen failed to explain during interrogation how disclosing these details would have incriminated him, making the late submission inadmissible.

Contested Defense Witnesses: Former Malé Deputy Mayor Ahmed Nareesh, Abdulla Rasheed, MP Mohamed Ismail, and MP Mohamed Shahid.

In response, Yameen and his defense team stated that he exercised his right to silence because police presented bank documents that could not be verified as authentic, choosing to address the matter in court instead.

Additionally, the defense requested the court to reject state witnesses, including former Vice President Ahmed Adeeb, former MMPRC Managing Director Abdulla Ziyath, and MP Ahmed Nazim, arguing that their prior corruption convictions undermine their credibility. The defense also asked to exclude 19 state witnesses added after the initial charge filing.

Presiding Judge Ali Nadeem announced that the court will rule on all preliminary motions during a hearing scheduled for October 12.

The High Court previously overturned Yameen’s 11-year conviction and ordered a retrial after ruling that prosecution rebuttal evidence, including military attendance records used to discredit defense witness Ahmed Nareesh’s testimony about delivering cash. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to exclude that rebuttal evidence, forcing the retrial to proceed at the Criminal Court without it.