Family Court begins preliminary hearings in Sajidha’s case against Mandhy

The Family Court on Wednesday began preliminary hearings in a case lodged by First Lady Sajidha Mohamed against Mariyam ‘Mandhy’ Zubair, a senior activist from the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), accusing the latter of violating the dignity of one of her three children and endangering his life with comments she made during a rally back in March.

During the March rally in Male’, Mandhy alleged that President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu made the decision last year to ban vaping in the Maldives “because one of Sajidha’s children got caught vaping”.

A day later, Sajidha said through a legal representative that the remarks – which called false - refer to her 16-year-old son, and that she plans on pursuing legal action.

Sajidha has filed cases against Mandhy and MDP chairperson Fayyaz Ismail at both the Civil Court and the Family Court over the remarks, accusing them of endangering her son’s safety, causing him mental distress, and harming his studies and future prospects.

Sajidha’s Family Court case accuses Mandhy of violating the dignity and protection guaranteed to children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Mandhy’s legal representative, Ibrahim Shiyam, told Sun that the court held its first preliminary hearing on Wednesday morning, during which Sajidha’s legal team presented their charges.

He said that they have been instructed to present their response to the charges on May 15.

Shiyam said that his client categorically denies the charges.

In previous statements, MDP claimed Mandhy did not name a specific child and nor do her remarks violate the dignity of a child.

On early March 17, a couple of days after the rally, Mandhy was attacked with engine oil by two individuals who followed her as she drove her motorcycle home on early March 17. The police arrested the driver on March 27 and later released him. They have yet to arrest the person who threw oil.

Mandhy is also under criminal investigation by the police over her remarks at the rally – an investigation that the police said was initiated at the request of the Children's Ombudsperson's Office – a claim that the office refuted in a statement on April 21. Sajidha’s legal team also clarified the same day that the criminal investigation had nothing to do with her, and that they were only pursuing civil action.