Thread by @MDN_mv

The Criminal Court held the fourth hearing on liberal blogger Yameen Rasheed’s murder trial from 14:25 to 16:08 today.

The hearing was scheduled for 13:30.

Two secret witnesses testified at today’s hearing.

Defence lawyers reiterated their objection to the Court producing secret prosecution witnesses, citing High Court rulings.

One defence lawyer asked for transcripts of previous testimonies to be shared as per the Criminal Procedure Code.

Judge clarified that the admissibility of secret witnesses had been exhausted during the preliminary stages and asked lawyers to refer to those issues in their closing remarks.

Secret Witness #5 and #2 testified at today’s hearing.

Forensic expert, who was summoned today, was sent back as defence lawyers claimed insufficient time to prepare for cross examination.

The expert witness had examined fingerprints from the crime scene.

Prosecution mentioned that the case file has been shared with the defence lawyers and their clients two years ago.

However, lawyers noted that they needed to know which witnesses were presented on the date of hearing at least two days in advance.

Secret Witness #5 claimed to have left the house around 2am and re-entered around 2.20am, observing that the lightbulb was not working.

The witness did not note anything unusual apart from that.

Certain questions raised by the defence were prevented to protect witness’s anonymity.

Most defence lawyers did not have any questions for the first witness.

The second witness (Secret Witness #2) testified to being near Yameen Rasheed’s house at the time of the murder. The witness heard loud screams of someone in severe pain, followed by two defendants leaving the house, while another defendant waited on a motorbike in the corner.

“They all left together. One of the two defendants who came out (of the victim’s house) got on the back of the other’s motorbike. The other one got on a bike parked near Yameen Rasheed’s house,” said Secret Witness #2, through audio link with voice distortion.

Lawyers complained that Judge’s clarification from previous hearing was unfair, and prosecution-led delays were unmentioned.

Judge reiterated that there were many factors that caused delays, including logistical issues for police and corrections.

He also ordered prosecution to inform lawyers and the court, in advance, specifying which witnesses are presented for the upcoming planned hearings.

Prosecution clarified that witness numbers 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 will be summoned in the remaining trial hearings.

Court adjourned until 21 August.