Thursday’s hearing of the bribery charges against Jumhooree Party Leader Qasim Ibrahim has revealed that the prosecution did not have any evidence against Qasim, apart from the video footage of the speech he gave in his Party premises of M. Kunooz.
Officers arrested and detained Qasim Ibrahim on the night of 6th April on allegations of bribery, attempting to influence the conduct of a public official, and trying to sway a voter.
During the proceedings when asked about the evidence by the prosecution, the PG Lawyers said that they have submitted all the evidence needed.
Qasim’s lawyers had raised objections over the authenticity of the audio analysis carried out on the speech given by Qasim in M. Kunooz. Lawyers said the analysis was carried out under duress, after Qasim used his right to remain silence. They said that Qasim was threatened with legal action if he refused to comply with Police orders. The lawyers asserted that a basic principle cannot be encroached even if it was sanctioned in court order and that there is no law that mandates that.
Given that the report was done under a court order, the presiding Judge had ordered to not further elaborate on that point. If displeased with the court order, the Judge said the defense had all rights to appeal that decision in an appellate court.
Responding to the claims, defense lawyer Hisaan Hussain said that the prosecution must identify exactly who Qasim had tried to bribe. She said this aspect of the case still remains unclear. As such, if the person whom Qasim had tried to bribe was a Parliamentarian, then the prosecution must state who it was.
She further said that prosecution had also failed to identify the compensation allegedly offered by Qasim and whether it was an illegal compensation.
Hisaan further questioned whether if it was illegal to sponsor and support any individual for the Parliament run. She also questioned whether it was illegal to request any individual to vote for or against an individual or whether if it was illegal to ask a constituent not to vote.
Hisaan said that making pledges during elections seasons was an established practice in the country. She pointed out to the incumbent Government’s fishermen’s insurance scheme pledge as an example of this. If this was a crime, then Hisaan said that it would be impossible for any political wing to gain any support.
Hisaan added that Qasim’s statements were in line with his mandate as a political figure. She said this was also in line with the Freedom of Expression Act. If the state was to press charges against him, then the charges must be raised under the Anti-Defamation Act, which was widely used to hinder free speech in the nation.
Responding to Hisaan’s statements, the prosecution said the defense had not denied the charges and that Qasim had spoken as a leader of a Party.
The state’s lawyer said that Qasim was charged with bribery attempt, not the actual act of bribery. Therefore, they said that it was not necessary to prove who Qasim had bribed. Additionally, it was clear that bribes were offered to Parliamentarians as that vote was only applicable to Parliament Members.
Prior to concluding the hearings, Judge’s bench had instructed Qasim’s lawyers to submit a copy of Jumhooree Party’s decision on awarding Party tickets to members. Judge had also ordered to produce a document detailing other instances of speeches that mirrored Qasim’s statements and procedures used in other nations over such issues.
The next hearings of the case will be on either the 3rd or the 4th of next month, with the Court to announce a set date.
