Police have refuted their own statements given to the investigation of the obstruction charges against former Commissioner of Police and Jumhooree Party Deputy Leader Abdullah Riyaz.
Riyaz, who is also the Kimbidhoo Constituency Parliamentarian, was charged with obstruction for having to cooperate with Police officers who had accosted him on the night of 27th March. The officers had demanded that the Parliamentarian unlock his phone, as part of an ongoing investigation.
Judge Ahmed Shakeel was the sole Judge attached with the case. However, the bench had now been increased to three Judges and now includes Judge Adam Arif and Judge Ali Adam.
In Wednesday’s hearings of the case, which began at 3pm, the prosecution’s four witnesses had given their statements. Two of the witnesses were the Police officers who had talked with the Parliamentarian and two of the officers were from the investigative team.
The hearings finished at around 2050hrs.
Arif Ali, one of the members of the investigative team, said that there was no investigation on Riyaz on March 27th. He noted that Riyaz had refused to comply with the request to hand over lock codes, as it was not listed in the Court order. He added that he had warned that other charges will be pressed against Riyaz if he had failed to cooperate with Police orders.
However, during cross examination by defense lawyers, Arif denied that he had made such a statement, adding that his statement to the investigation had errors in it. He added that he had forgotten to file for an additional Court order mandating Riyaz to hand over the lock codes. Arif said that another officer may have requested for it, adding that he was not aware of such a request.
Arif said that two Court orders were issued on the same case; one had instructed to hand over lock codes, the other had instructed to hand over all information. However, he alleged that the lock codes must be handed over under the order that had instructed to hand over all information.
Arif further said the team was led by Ahmed Azmath Abdullah. A statement which, once again he denied during cross examination, refusing to reveal the name of the head. He only said that the team was made up of four members. He added that when he saw the phone, it was in an evidence bag and it was shut off. Arif said that he had instructed Riyaz to enter the lock codes and enter the phone into flight mode.
Azmath said they had applied for a second Court order, after Riyaz had refused to hand over the lock codes. However, he refuted this on cross examination, stating that they had communicated with Court over the issue but had not filed a request for a second one. He said the Court had said that under the terms of the first order, the lock codes should be handed over and that a fresh order cannot be released.
He added that Police’s Forensics team had checked the phone. They had informed that the only way the phone can be accessed was by entering the lock codes.
Hussain Naseem, one of the Police officers who had accosted Riyaz, said that he had refused to hand over even when the Court order was shown. He said he was forced to confiscate Riyaz’s phone from his pocket. Naseem said that he had kept the phone screen visible to Riyaz at all times. He then took the phone to Galolhu vili, along with Riyaz, where the phone was placed in an evidence bag. The phone was then transferred to Shaheed Hussain Adam building, where it was transferred to the investigative team.
The second officer who had gone to Riyaz’s residence with the order, Mohamed Shafiu testified that the phone was confiscated when Riyaz took the phone out of his pocket. While Hussain Naseem claimed that he was at Iskandhar Koshi at the time the order was issued, Shafiu said that he was in Maaveyo Magu. Shafiu said that he had shown the order to Riyaz, but did not recall filing the chain of custody forms. He added that Naseem was the senior officer and therefore, he had carried out all the communications.
He said that Riyaz had entered the Police vehicle when ordered, but said that there was no order to arrest the Parliamentarian.
This is the first time a trial is held over an individual’s refusal to hand over lock codes. In the next hearings, the Court will hear the statements of defense witnesses. The Judge’s bench announced the next hearings will be held on Thursday.
