High Court concludes hearings in Ammaty’s appeal; verdict next

High Court has concluded hearings in the appeal against the acquittal of SeaLife Global managing director Ahmed Moosa Mohamed (Ammaty) of the dozens of charges he faced on allegations of defrauding over 200 tenants out of millions in booking fees for a planned apartment complex in suburban Hulhumale within just six months.

While numerous high-profile cases have remained pending before the High Court for five to six years, Ammaty’s appeal, filed by the state in April this year, was expedited, with all hearings completed in just three or four hearings.

The case is now awaiting verdict. The appeal is being heard by a High Court bench comprising Chief Judge Abdulla Jameel Moosa, Judge Mohamed Shaneez Abdulla, and Judge Abdul Maaniu Hussain.

Following the commencement of the appeal proceedings, the High Court imposed a travel ban on Ammaty and confiscated his passport. Ammaty had previously fled the country but was arrested in Sri Lanka and extradited to the Maldives in 2021. He was subsequently held in pre-trial detention before being released.

The state initially filed 42 charges against Ammaty after SeaLife Global was contracted in 2014 to construct 3,000 apartments and subsequently collected advance payments from members of the public. However, the Criminal Court previously ruled that the dispute was civil in nature and should be resolved through the civil justice system, resulting in Ammaty’s acquittal on all criminal charges.

During a lengthy hearing before the High Court, an visibly agitated Ammaty threatened state prosecutors, accusing them of lying and misrepresenting the facts of the case.

"The state must speak the truth in court, based on the actual events and documentation. The state is currently claiming that we took bookings and sold non-existent flats using random numbers. That never happened," Ammaty stated in court.

He further stressed that, as the proceedings were being conducted in a court of law, arguments should be grounded in factual evidence and documentation, adding that there was no justification for the state to engage in deceit or misrepresentation during the trial.