Former President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom has defended the practice of sitting presidents accepting financial contributions from political supporters, arguing that receiving such funds is not unlawful unless the donor is granted an improper benefit in return.
Yameen made the remarks at the Criminal Court on Tuesday during the final hearing of his bribery and money laundering trial concerning the lease of R. Fuggiri, as prosecutors questioned the source of substantial sums of money he possessed while serving as president.
His arguments placed renewed attention on the distinction between legitimate political financing and payments that could create conflicts of interest or influence government decisions.
The former president maintained that supporters may provide money to political leaders to help secure their re-election, and argued that such contributions do not necessarily have to pass through political party accounts.
He insisted that receiving financial assistance from well-wishers should not automatically be treated as a criminal offence.
However, the central question in the Fuggiri case is not simply whether political supporters can make financial contributions. Prosecutors allege that Yameen received USD 1 million in connection with the island’s lease and subsequently laundered the money.
The prosecution challenged Yameen to explain how he had accumulated large amounts of money while holding the country’s highest political office.
Responding to those questions, Yameen said he had several sources of income despite not being actively involved in running businesses during his presidency.
He pointed to rental income from properties and maintained that his financial records demonstrated he had substantial personal wealth before becoming president.
Yameen also reiterated his position that the disputed USD 1 million was connected to a currency exchange involving funds he had obtained through different sources, rather than an unlawful payment linked to the island transaction.
The former president further rejected suggestions that keeping substantial amounts of cash at home was inherently suspicious or illegal.
He argued that storing money securely at a private residence, rather than depositing it in a bank, did not constitute a criminal offence.
While Yameen sought to portray the receipt and private storage of substantial funds as lawful activities, the prosecution’s case centres on whether the money was connected to the exercise of presidential authority and the alleged corruption surrounding the Fuggiri lease.
The distinction is significant because a payment described as political support does not necessarily cease to raise corruption concerns if evidence establishes that it was linked to an official decision or improper advantage.
The Fuggiri case is connected to the wider Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation (MMPRC) corruption scandal, involving allegations of financial irregularities in the leasing of islands for tourism development.
Fuggiri was leased through MMPRC to Classic City Island Holdings for approximately USD 1.55 million without a competitive bidding process.
Prosecutors allege that Yameen received a USD 1 million bribe associated with the transaction. He denies wrongdoing.
During the closing arguments, Yameen’s defence team also sought to undermine the prosecution’s case by challenging the reliability of two key witnesses, former Vice President Ahmed Adeeb and former MMPRC Managing Director Abdulla Ziyath.
Lead defence lawyer and former Vice President Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed accused the state of relying on the two men to construct a case against Yameen.
Jameel described Adeeb and Ziyath as discredited witnesses and argued that previous Supreme Court findings raised questions about the evidentiary value of their testimony.
He further alleged that the prosecution was attempting to isolate Yameen politically while allowing other individuals implicated in the MMPRC scandal to escape accountability.
Another defence lawyer, Hamza Latheef, questioned the impartiality of Adeeb and Ziyath, arguing that their testimony was influenced by plea agreements reached with the state in exchange for more favourable treatment.
The defence also drew attention to the prosecution’s decision to withdraw charges against Ahmed Riza, commonly known as Krik Riza, who had been accused of involvement in the alleged bribery arrangement.
Latheef argued that the withdrawal of those charges, together with the decision not to appeal the acquittal of companies accused of facilitating money laundering, demonstrated inconsistent treatment of defendants.
The prosecution has rejected claims that Yameen is being unfairly singled out, maintaining that the evidence and legal circumstances surrounding his alleged involvement differ from those of the other accused parties.
Yameen is now the only remaining defendant facing trial in connection with the Fuggiri transaction.
With both the prosecution and defence having completed their closing submissions, the Criminal Court has scheduled its verdict for October 29.
The judgment is expected to determine whether the prosecution has established the alleged connection between the disputed funds, the Fuggiri lease and Yameen’s actions while in office.
Separately, Yameen is facing renewed proceedings over the lease of V. Aarah, another case linked to the MMPRC scandal.
His earlier conviction and 11-year prison sentence in that case were overturned by the High Court, which ordered a retrial. Subsequent proceedings have involved disputes over the admissibility of prosecution evidence.
The Fuggiri verdict will mark a significant development in the continuing legal proceedings arising from the MMPRC scandal, with the court now tasked with determining whether the disputed USD 1 million represented legitimate funds, as Yameen maintains, or the proceeds of bribery, as alleged by the state.
