Criminal Court denies arrest warrant for MP Easa

Kendhikulhudhoo Constituency parliamentarian Ahmed Easa seen during the 2019 Parliamentary election campaign | Photo: FENAKA

Male’, Maldives – Criminal Court of Maldives has denied arrest warrant requested by Maldives Police Service against MP of Kendhikulhudhoo constituency, Ahmed Easa for a domestic violence case lodged against him.

Prosecutor General’s Office had requested the court for a warrant yesterday to arrest MP Easa for attacking his wife Asra Naeem (Asoo) who is also the younger sister of Vice President of Maldives, Faisal Naseem. Asra, after giving her statements to Police, has stated in a Facebook post that the experience is something she never expected to go through.

The only female Judge of the Criminal Court, Dheeba Naaz Fahumy announced her verdict that although there are reasons why he is accused of domestic violence, under section 40 of the Criminal Procedure Bill, there is no lawful method to release an order to arrest MP Easa.

According to the verdict, although PG Office noted that the Police has stated that the reasons to arrest MP Easa include that he could influenced the remaining witnesses of the matter, the court has not received any proof other than the statement.

Along with this, the court stated that the incident happened on May 19, 2021 and that when the Police was informed of the incident and immediately arrived to the scene, MP Easa was not present at the place. As he was not seen, the accusations on him over domestic violence does not include in the crimes present in section 22 of Criminal Procedure Bill and that under the Section 49 of the constitution, Section 59 and 60 of the Criminal Procedure Bill MP Easa cannot be held captive for investigation purposes.

In addition to this, the verdict noted that the Police and PG Office had previously never requested to arrest a perpetrator who was accused of violence even when 12 counts were made against an individual and that if MP Easa is arrested regarding this matter, Judge stated that it would mean that the court is against the equality rules.