The Maldives High Court has expressed severe dissatisfaction with state agencies in former Tourism Minister Ali Waheed’s case in its ruling refusing to hold Ali Waheed’s diplomatic passport, stating that the diplomatic passport was issued to him as the tourism minister and now that it has become void, there is no point in holding a cancelled passport.
On June 23, the Maldives Police Service presented a similar case to the Criminal Court at the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office, seeking a travel ban order against Ali Waheed to prevent him from leaving the United Kingdom, where he is now residing for medical treatment after the Criminal Court controversially released his passport in February. But Criminal Court Judge Hassan Saeed dismissed the plea for a travel ban in a judgement issued more than a week later, citing a lack of solid grounds for seizing his passport.
Following the Criminal Court’s verdict, the decision was appealed to the High Court, which first denied to hear the issue, stating that an appeal hearing cannot be conducted in absentia, until the Supreme Court ordered to reconsider it.
The High Court decided on Sunday that there is no legal room to detain Ali Waheed’s already-cancelled diplomatic passport and denied the Prosecutor General’s Office’s plea. However, the High Court stated that the Criminal Court’s grounds for refusing to hold his passport was invalid.
According to the judgement of presiding Judge Abdulla Hameed, the State provided Ali Waheed’s diplomatic passport number in its request, which was annulled when he was sacked as tourism minister.
“There is no justification to keep Ali Waheed’s diplomatic passport, which was cancelled days before he left the country, and there is no legal outcome that could be obtained by holding a cancelled passport,” Judge Abdulla Hameed said in his decision.
The three-judge panel further noted that the State’s first request to the Criminal Court was to hold Ali Waheed’s diplomatic passport, which had already been cancelled before the Criminal Court ordered the holding and voiding of his passport.
Ali Waheed reportedly departed the country using an ordinary passport, which was before the Criminal Court ruled to vacate its judgement to confiscate Ali Waheed’s diplomatic passport for medical treatment.
Furthermore, the High Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the State’s and law enforcement agencies’ activities in Ali Waheed’s case, noting that carelessness and ineffective measures by state agencies, who have law enforcement authority provided by law, had led the Court to squander its resources and time.
Judge Mohamed Niyaz, who backed Judge Abdulla Hameed’s ruling, noted that state authorities should first determine the passport number currently used by Ali Waheed before demanding that his passport be confiscated through the courts.
“Not any passport, but it hasn’t been checked. If it had been checked, there is no use in requesting that a cancelled passport be seized,” Judge Niyaz stated.
In that regard, Judge Niyaz stated that the State’s request to seize Ali Waheed’s passport through the courts was not made with the purpose of achieving any significant outcome.
However, Judge Ali Sameer disagreed with the other two judges on the bench, noting that the fact that a cancelled passport number was included in the request to detain his passport is not a legitimate justification to not give a ruling to seize his passport or travel papers.
He said that the request includes holding Ali Waheed’s travel papers, not only his passport, and that the objective of the request is to prevent Ali Waheed from travelling and return him back to the country. According to Judge Sameer, this gives the Court legal basis to deliver a judgement confiscating his travel documents and passport.
But the other two judges on the Criminal Court bench who presided over the appeal hearing did not agree with his judgement.
