- Auditor General refers to prosecute Jihad regarding MVR 300 million loan issue
- Govt Oversight Committee to decide on cabinet approval issue on 23 Dec
- President Yameen Ratifies Anti-Human Trafficking Bill
- Minister at the President’s Office Scheduled to Attend OIC Council of Foreign Ministers Session
- Baros Maldives celebrates its 40th anniversary
- It is a worry if authorities don’t take action against law breakers- Shameem
- Gasim proved his love for the nation in the Presidential election- Ameen
- Many challenges even after catching illegal expats- Immigration
- All basic items will be sold cheap if all due payments are settled- Adam Azim
- National Flag to be flown at half-mast following death of former President of South Africa
- Vice President praises Nelson Mandela as a model of leadership for equality and rights
- Several issues regarding the school system would be resolved in time for new academic year – Vice President
- “Nelson Mandela was a source of Unrivalled Inspiration for Recent Generations” – President Yameen
Judges statements in the court documents and the trial are contradictory- Nasheed
Former President Mohamed Nasheed has said that the statements of the judges in the transcription are not in conformity with the actual statements of the judges in the hearing of the case against on the charges of illegally arresting and keeping Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdullah Mohamed in military detention.
Speaking to the media, former President Nasheed said that the transcriptions of the hearing he got from the court are totally different from what the judges said in the court room.
“The transcriptions are totally different from what the judges actually said in the last hearing. This is very saddening. Inconsistent,” he said.
Nasheed said that one of the contradictions is in the statements related to their reply in regards to the case raised by his legal team on the issue of holding the hearing in other than the court where the case was submitted by the PG. He said that according to the transcription of the trial, the Judges explained that the Hulhumale magistrate court’s lack of space gives them the constitutional choice under Act 42 (c) and (d) to hold an open trial and that previously trials have been held at Dharubaaruge. Nasheed said that none of the judges from judges bench mentioned this during the trial.
Nasheed said that this shows that this trial can never be just and fair. He also raised concern on the court’s decision to deny two lawyers from his legal team from advocating on his behalf during the trial.