Mahloof, Ali Waheed respond in Court: allegations are unclear

Thoddoo MP Ali Waheed and Galolhu Dhekunu MP Ahmed Mahloof have said in Court that the allegations made against them are unclear.

The State has alleged Mahloof and Waheed of obstructing Police duty by removing roadblocks at Muleeaage area, and protesting near the former President’s residence on 25 March 2010.

Mahloof responded to Judge Abdullah Didi’s question on the allegations by saying that he had participated in numerous protests over the past three years, and that it is unclear which roadblocks this particular allegation entails.

Mahloof added that due to the considerable lapse of time since the incident, he no longer remembers what exactly had transpired during the protests.

Ali Waheed also responded that the allegations are ambiguous, and added that there is no proof that he was the one who removed the roadblocks near Muleeaage.

The Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office Attorney said that they had sufficient evidence that the roadblocks were removed by Mahloof and Waheed.

The State is prosecuting both Mahloof and Waheed for their actions at the protest while they were members of Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP).

Mahloof, who has since joined Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), requested the State to separate the claims against them as they now represent different political ideologies.

However the State responded that the case does not concern their current differences in political opinions, and pointed out that political discussions are not allowed in Court.

Waheed questioned the State Attorney why the prosecution of the case had been delayed until now, to which the State Attorney replied that the case was first submitted to Criminal Court in 2010, but then withdrawn.

The Judge asked why the PG Office withdrew the case, and also whether there exists a policy which allows the PG Office to withdraw cases as they please.

The State Attorney replied that the reason for withdrawal was the existence of another case pertaining to two people who entered the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and created unrest. As the Police had not completed their investigation of that case, and the PG Office did not want to prosecute the current case while a similar case involving JSC, was still pending.

He added that the case is now presented in Court for prosecution together with the one on JSC.

Before adjourning today’s session, the Judge announced that the next session will be held shortly, and allowed both defendants to appoint attorneys for themselves.