Second hearing on motion filed to annul presidential polls concludes, Supreme Court schedules a third hearing for tomorrow

The second hearing on the motion, filed by the presidential candidate of Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) incumbent President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom, to annul the presidential election, has been concluded. The second hearing on the motion began at 1030 hours this morning. However, the session was recessed at 1230 hours to make a decision on a procedural matter. The Supreme Court has now scheduled a third hearing for tomorrow morning, 1030 hours.

At the morning session of the hearing, PPM noted the issue of M7 Print. PPM accused contracting a company where a large chunk of shares are held by Villa Group, compromises the validly of the ballot papers. Villa Group is owned by leader of Jumhoory Party Qasim Ibrahim, who backed the opposition coalition candidate in the presidential election.

The lead attorney of PPM Abbas Shareef reiterated the claim the refusal to contract the allegedly better-qualified Novelty Printers and Publishers to print the ballot papers was a ploy to ensure the election process could be tampered with. Thus, Abbas requested for a permit to investigate the matter. Abbas Shareef added logs clearly show attempts to rig the election.

Questioning the validity of the ballot papers, the prosecution noted unlike previous elections, the two keys of the venue where ballot boxes were stored were with the President of the Elections Commission. In the past, one key would be under the supervision of Maldives Police Service.

The prosecution also claimed 39 people entered the said venue in 197 instances and some of the people who entered the venue did not exit. The prosecution asked for permission to further investigate the allegation. They also claimed the rings with special features were obtained in response to a direct instruction from President of the Elections Commission.

The prosecution alleged the rings, which allegedly had special features could influence the outcome of the election, were purchased by an agent who was sent to carry out the task by the President of the Elections Commission, who also funded the whole venture.

PPM requested permission to submit discreet testimonies of three witnesses to prove these claims. When asked why discreet testimony was required at the hearings, PPM cited the volatile political environment posing threats to witnesses.

However, the Chief Justice, however, said a decision on the acceptance of discreet testimonies would be made, only after providing both the prosecution and the defence opportunity to debate on the matter. At the hearing, the legal team for PPM handed over the names of witnesses and photographic evidence to the bench.