Lawmaker Abdulla Riyaz speaking to the press. PHOTO:Hussain Waheed/Mihaaru
Several discrepancies have been found among the testimonies of witnesses presented to the hearing of former Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz, who is charged with obstructing a law enforcement officer.
Also the deputy leader of Jumhoory Party, Riyaz was charged for refusing to give up his mobile phone to a police officer with a court order.
The Criminal Court took the testimonies of two policemen who came to confiscate his mobile phone and two officers of the investigative team. The testimonies of the two investigative officers in particular differed from each other.
The first officer from the investigative team testified that Riyaz’s mobile phone was switched off while it was brought to the police station. However, the other officer testified that the mobile was not switched off and was ringing at the time it was brought for investigation.
Inconsistencies were also found between the testimonies given by the two police officers who went with the court order to confiscate Riyaz’s phone. One testified that a warning was given to Riyaz when he denied to give his mobile phone against the court order. However, the second police officer testified that no such warnings were given.
Despite the second testimony, the statement of investigation also declared that Riyaz was warned that he was committing an offence by denying a court order.
Upon this, the second police officer said the statement of investigation is untrue when questioned by the defence and judges.
Moreover, the first police officer said that Police tried to obtain a new court order as Riyaz had first refused to open his mobile phone with the initial warrant. He added that later, Police was informed by the court that the passcode of his mobile should be given within the initial court order and, subsequently, Riyaz had given three different codes to open his phone the next day, claiming to have forgotten it. None of the codes provided was correct.
Hence, Police requested him to contact them again once he remembers the correct code.
Conversely, the second officer testified that he was not informed about obtaining a new court order, but he backed that Riyaz gave three incorrect codes.
The testimonies of all witnesses presented by the prosecution is now complete. Next would be the testimony of witnesses presented by the defendant and judges.
During the hearing, defence lawyers also questioned the sudden change brought to the judges’ bench which was initially occupied by one sitting judge, Ahmed Shakeel, but later it was changed to a bench consisting Judge Shakeel, Judge Adam Arif and Judge Ali Adam. They replied that it was an administrative change.
The lawyers further questioned whether the trial was put on fast track as the hearing continued from evening until night. However, the Judges Bench replied that no such action has been carried out and that enough time has been provided between each hearing to prepare for the defence.