Ahmed Nazim, Parliament’s Deputy Speaker and the parliamentary representative for Dhiggaru constituency, states there is no way to prove that false evidence given at court is false under existing legislatures.
While debating on the bill to amend the Evidence Act submitted by ruling PNC’s Bilehdhdhoo MP Ahmed Aslam – aimed at establishing new conditions under which journalists may be compelled to disclose their sources – at Tuesday’s parliamentary sitting, Nazim expressed concern over criminals walking free due to difficulties faced by the court in accepting and evaluating evidence under the current Evidence Act.
Nazim emphasized the need to update how evidence is accepted to keep pace with technological advancements, highlighting that the law must be amended to align with modern times.
He underscored that the suspects who attacked former prosecutor general Hussain Shameem had walked free because of inconsistencies in the timestamp on the CCTV camera footage.
“In a case we have recently witnessed, [the suspect] gave testimony during the court proceedings after remaining silent during the police investigation. There is no way to challenge this testimony. There is no way to challenge if it is not defined what should be counted as “evidence” in various stages of evidence submission,” he said.
“Hence, there is no way to challenge the evidence being submitted. Our system lacks ways to prove that false evidence is false,” he stressed.
Nazim added that this had given rise to many issues.
The amendment submitted by Aslam seeks to revise Article 136 of the Act.
Under the proposed changes, the High Court would be empowered to issue an order for source disclosure if deemed essential to prevent an accused from committing an offense. The court must decide within 24 hours of receiving such a request. If appealed, the case must be submitted to the Supreme Court within ten days.
The amendment also expands the list of circumstances where journalists may be required to reveal their sources. These include:
Acts of terrorism
Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information
Attempts to overthrow the government by force
Armed aggression
Offences threatening national security, sovereignty, or territorial integrity
The move follows longstanding concerns from journalists over the original Evidence Act passed by the previous Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) government. Media professionals had petitioned the President’s Office to revise provisions they feared could compromise press freedom. Although former President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih later pledged to amend the law, no changes were enacted during his term.