Monday’s discussion of the new evidence bill, on handling witnesses and testimonies, has sparked dialogue on corruption within the Maldivian judiciary.
MP Abdulla Riyaz, who previously served as Police Commissioner under the Waheed administration, said in parliament that many sitting judges are corrupt and avenues to prosecute said corruption need to be put in place.
He also said corrupt judges need to be ‘washed out’ before free and transparent judicial proceedings can ever happen in the country. MP Riyaz further stressed the importance of procedural amendments that would allow impartial inquiry into cases against judges, which Riyaz said to be often dismissed or hindered, and reduce political influences on verdicts.
“Without thoroughly washing out corruption from our judiciary, without stopping political influence on judges, and without establishing means to probe judges, we can never have free and fair trials in the Maldives” Riyaz continued.
In this regard, Riyaz went on to say that important aspects of acquiring and applying evidence are now left solely to the hands of judges, and that this is detrimental to free and just trials.
He referred to the contentious terrorism charges against former Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim, to express that judges are given too much authority on the evidence they weigh, and that they are currently entitled to selectively neglect important facts of a case.
“This bill will lay down guidelines that no one is exempt from, solid procedures that need to be followed, and it will limit the authority the judges wield” he said.
Opposition MP Imthiyaz Fahmy also chimed in and said a ‘stack of dollars’ would make more difference to a judge’s verdict than evidence. While MP Fahmy acknowledged the importance of the bill, he also expressed a lack of confidence that it would have any positive outcomes without first plucking out corruption within the judiciary.
“This new evidence bill will only work on the day Maldivian judges are given the option between weighing all evidence of a case, or a stack of dollars for ignoring evidence, and they do not choose the latter” Fahmy said.
