October 29, Colombo (LNW): A Sri Lankan national who spent a year in prison over the discovery of more than two kilogrammes of gold concealed in his clothing has been acquitted by the High Court of Maldives, which ruled that the charges against him did not satisfy the legal requirements for a criminal conviction.
The decision was delivered on October 28 this year, exactly one year after the Criminal Court sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment on October 28 last year for smuggling goods into the country. By the time the higher court overturned the conviction, he had already completed the entire sentence.
The case dates back to September 21, 2023, when Mohamed Sulaimhan arrived in the Maldives aboard an Emirates flight via Dubai. As he attempted to leave Velana International Airport through the Green Channel, customs officials stopped him after discovering documents suggesting that he had purchased gold in Dubai.
A subsequent inspection uncovered 2,282 grammes of gold paste concealed in the front and rear pockets of his jeans and inside his underwear.
Sulaimhan was subsequently charged with smuggling goods under Section 97(a) of the Customs Act. However, the High Court later concluded unanimously that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential legal elements necessary to sustain the charge.
In its assessment, the court examined the scope of Section 97(a), which, according to Judge Mohamed Abdullah, applies to goods that are prohibited, require a special permit, or are subject to customs duties where they are secretly brought into the country with the intention of evading payment.
A crucial factor in the appeal was the prosecution’s own acknowledgement during the proceedings that the gold was neither prohibited nor subject to customs duty.
The State nevertheless maintained that gold brought into the country without declaration could be regarded as an unauthorised commodity. The High Court rejected that argument, emphasising that an act cannot be treated as a criminal offence merely because the authorities consider it unlawful when the legislature has not expressly established it as such.
In reaching its decision, the judges referred to Article 59(a) of the Maldivian Constitution and the relevant principles of the Penal Code, which underpin the requirement for criminal liability to be grounded in law.
The bench further clarified that the failure to declare goods does not automatically place them in the category of prohibited items. It also found that the indictment had not adequately set out the essential components of the alleged offence, as required by Article 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
On these grounds, the High Court determined that the original conviction was inconsistent with Articles 51(h) and 59(a) of the Constitution and overturned the Criminal Court’s ruling.
The appeal was heard by a three-judge bench comprising Mohamed Shaneez, Hussain Mazeed and Huzaifa Mohamed, alongside Judge Mohamed Abdullah’s observations on the legal interpretation of the charge.
The ruling highlights the importance of distinguishing between a failure to comply with customs declaration requirements and the commission of a specific criminal offence under the law. It also reinforces the principle that courts cannot uphold a conviction unless the prosecution establishes the legally defined elements of the charge.
For Sulaimhan, however, the acquittal came only after he had served the full year-long prison term imposed by the lower court. The case therefore presents an unusual outcome in the Maldivian justice system, with a higher court declaring a defendant not guilty after the punishment ordered by the original court had already been completed.
