High Court Orders Retrial in Child Abuse Case Citing Lack of Key Testimony
In a significant turn of events, the High Court of Maldives has nullified a 15-year prison sentence issued to a man convicted of sexually abusing his six-year-old daughter. The court has ordered a retrial, citing critical procedural shortcomings in the original case—including the failure to summon a key psychological expert witness.
Given the sensitive nature of the case, especially its involvement of a minor, the High Court withheld the name of the lower court that delivered the initial verdict. The original case was submitted in September 2021 and concluded in October 2023.
Conviction Challenged Over Evidence and Procedure
The defendant, Mohamed Niyaz, had been convicted of sexually abusing his child while in a position of trust—a charge that carries severe legal weight. However, in his appeal to the High Court, Niyaz contested the verdict, arguing that the conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence, and that it conflicted with a prior Supreme Court ruling and Article 143(d) of the Constitution. This article mandates that lower courts adhere to decisions made by higher courts.
According to the defense, Niyaz claimed that any physical contact was in the context of cleaning the child after she urinated. He further argued that a medical report showed no physical harm to the child and alleged that the child’s statements were influenced by the mother, from whom he is divorced. The defense questioned the credibility of the mother’s testimony, asserting it was colored by personal grievances.
Discrepancies and Missing Testimony Raise Red Flags
The case also revealed several procedural gaps. A psychologist had conducted an assessment of the child, reportedly uncovering troubling details. However, the expert was never summoned to testify or cross-examined in court. The High Court criticized the lower court’s decision to rely on the assessment report without directly verifying its contents—especially since the findings partially contradicted statements from the mother and the child’s maternal grandmother.
Both the State and the defense had requested the court to call the psychologist as a witness. The magistrate at the time declined, citing scheduling difficulties and potential delays in proceedings. The High Court found this reasoning insufficient, noting that the integrity of the trial depended on the proper evaluation of all critical testimony.
Conflicting Accounts Complicate the Narrative
The case involved multiple, and at times conflicting, statements from the child's mother. In her first statement, she claimed the child denied being touched inappropriately. However, in a later account, she stated that the child disclosed incidents of abuse during routine bathing, along with allegations of being shown inappropriate videos by her father. The maternal grandmother supported parts of this testimony, though her account also differed in key areas.
The child reportedly disclosed more disturbing details to the psychologist than she did during formal investigation. Yet, the absence of direct court testimony from the expert left the veracity of these disclosures open to question.
High Court Cites Incomplete Review of Evidence
In its May 29 ruling, the High Court emphasized that justice could not be served without revisiting the core evidence, particularly the psychologist’s testimony. The bench concluded that the lower court’s decision to proceed without verifying the child's psychological assessment undermined the integrity of the trial.
The court ruled that a retrial must be conducted, during which the psychologist should be summoned and questioned. Additionally, all submitted evidence must be reassessed to determine whether the conviction was justified.
This case underscores the importance of due process in sensitive criminal cases, especially those involving minors. The High Court’s decision reflects a broader concern about the thoroughness and reliability of lower court proceedings in such emotionally and socially charged matters.
As the case returns to trial, it is expected to draw close scrutiny from the public, legal professionals, and child protection advocates alike.