Police Officer in Vape Case Denies Taking Oath at Swearing-In Ceremony
A High Court hearing has taken an unusual turn after a special constable accused of selling e-cigarettes claimed he never actually took the official police oath, despite attending the swearing-in ceremony.
Special Constable Mohamed Sajid Ahmed was arrested last month following a court-approved search of his home and motorcycle. Authorities reported finding a significant quantity of tobacco, nano sticks, vapes, vape cartridges, and 191.92 grams of suspected drugs. He was later released by Thinadhoo Magistrate’s Court.
Prosecutors Argue Officer Was Bound by Law
During Thursday’s hearing, state prosecutors argued that e-cigarettes are banned under Maldivian law. They added that police officers face additional legal consequences if they engage in prohibited activities, making Sajid’s alleged conduct even more serious.
They maintained that Sajid had joined the Special Constabulary on 7 May last year, completed the swearing-in process, and signed an affidavit confirming his status as a sworn officer.
Defence Claims Oath Was Never Taken
Defence lawyer Ahmed Yameen countered that while Sajid had attended the oath-taking ceremony, he did not actually recite the words. According to the defence, Sajid chose to remain silent because he was “a little scared” to take an oath in the name of Allah.
Sajid told the court he simply stood with his hands in front of him while others took the oath and that he never wore a uniform. Despite this, he admitted continuing in the role and receiving his salary.
Judges Question Credibility of Claim
Chief Judge Mohamed Niyaz openly challenged the explanation, calling it implausible for someone to attend the ceremony, carry out police duties for months, and later claim the oath was never taken.
“That is saying a big lie,” Judge Niyaz remarked. “If we allow this interpretation, how can we trust the police, MNDF, or any sworn officer?”
Justice Deebanaz Fahmy also pressed Sajid on his account, while Judge Niyaz dismissed the defence’s suggestion that the matter was simply a semantic dispute. He stressed that a legally mandated oath cannot be reinterpreted after the fact.
The chief judge further questioned how such claims could even be verified in large oath-taking ceremonies. He warned that accepting this argument could weaken public confidence not only in law enforcement but also in other sworn professions, including the judiciary and legal sector.
Verdict to Be Delivered Later
The hearing ended following the exchange between the bench and the defence. The High Court is expected to issue its decision at a later date.