Lawyers representing former President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom have argued that the testimonies of former Vice President Ahmed Adheeb and former Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation (MMPRC) Managing Director Abdulla Ziyath can no longer be admitted under the current Evidence Act.

Yameen was previously sentenced to 11 years in prison for accepting bribes and money laundering in connection with the lease of V. Aarah. However, the High Court later overturned the conviction and ordered the Criminal Court to conduct a retrial.

The state appealed the High Court's decision to the Supreme Court, particularly its finding that new evidence could not be introduced. The Supreme Court subsequently upheld the ruling, following which the Criminal Court resumed proceedings in the case today.

Before the trial formally began, Yameen's legal team raised a preliminary objection seeking to prevent Adheeb and Ziyath from testifying. The defense argued that their evidence is inadmissible under the Evidence Act currently in force.

When the Criminal Court originally ruled on the case, the new Evidence Act had not yet come into effect. However, the legislation was in force by the time the High Court ordered the case to be retried.

Yameen's lawyer, Hamza Latheef, referred to Articles 48 and 49 of the Evidence Act, which state that individuals whose integrity and fairness are considered questionable may be deemed lacking credibility as witnesses. The provisions specifically include individuals convicted of offences such as theft, embezzlement, robbery, fraud, swindling and corruption.

The law further provides that testimony from a person deemed non-credible may only be relied upon when there is no other witness whose evidence is sufficient to establish a particular matter.

Hamza noted that, even before the current Evidence Act came into force, the Supreme Court had determined in the Ga. Vodamula case that Adheeb and Ziyath could testify, after finding that both had displayed hostility toward Yameen.

State Attorney Ahmed Shafiu, however, rejected the defense's argument, saying Adheeb and Ziyath are among the people with the most extensive knowledge of the alleged corruption at the centre of the case. He added that the prosecution intends to present additional evidence to corroborate their accounts.

The defense also asked the court to exclude testimony from former People's Majlis Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim. According to Yameen's lawyer, Nazim's evidence is based on his general knowledge of alleged corruption at MMPRC rather than specific knowledge of the V. Aarah transaction.

Meanwhile, the prosecution has objected to the admission of several pieces of evidence the defense intends to present. The state argued that defendants should not be allowed to introduce evidence during trial that they had withheld during the investigative stage after choosing to remain silent.

The evidence challenged by the prosecution includes the testimonies of former Malé Deputy Mayor Ahmed Nareesh, Abdulla Rasheed, Vilimalé MP Mohamed Ismail and Hithadhoo MP Mohamed Shahid, as well as a document relating to a dollar-exchange transaction.

Yameen and co-defendant Yoosuf Naeem maintain that the US$1 million deposited into Yameen's account came from a dollar-exchange deal, with the equivalent amount in Maldivian rufiyaa allegedly handed over to Naeem in cash. Nareesh had previously testified that he witnessed the money being counted and handed over.

However, questions have since been raised over Nareesh's testimony, and he has declined to appear as a defense witness in the separate R. Fuhgiri case involving Yameen.

The Criminal Court is also hearing charges against Yameen relating to alleged bribery and money laundering over the lease of R. Fuhgiri. A hearing in that case scheduled for last week was cancelled.

In the Fuhgiri case, in which Yameen is accused of accepting and laundering a US$1 million bribe linked to the lease transaction, the prosecution and defense have completed the witness testimony stage. The case is currently at the stage of presenting arguments on the admissibility and consideration of evidence, where proceedings have remained for an extended period.