Petition filed at SC to halt action against Justices until constitutional amendment case on membership loss is concluded
The case referenced by the lawyer is one challenging the constitutionality of the changes made to Article 73 of the Constitution
The Supreme Court of Maldives
A petition has been filed at the Supreme Court seeking an order to prevent action against a Supreme Court Justice before the conclusion of the case regarding the constitutional amendment on membership loss at the People’s Majlis.
In the submission requesting a court order as the party who filed the case seeking an order for all state institutions not to take any action to influence the Supreme Court in relation to case number 2024/SC-C/02, it was stated that while a hearing has been scheduled for 17 February 2025, information has been circulating that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is investigating ethical issues of some Supreme Court justices, that a criminal investigation is being conducted on a justice, and that preparations are underway to submit cases to the People's Majlis for the removal of justices.
Lawyer Ali Hussain, who filed the case, stated that Article 142 of the Constitution stipulates that judges in the Maldives are independent individuals who act without bias, fear, or prejudice in accordance with the Constitution and laws. He added that if any party acts in a way that hinders judges' ability to work independently, it could potentially obstruct the administration of justice. In such situations, issuing necessary orders to ensure justice and prevent misuse of the system is a power granted to the Supreme Court by Article 22(b) of the Maldivian Courts Act.
The lawyer requested a court order under Article 22(b) of Law No. 2010/22 (Maldivian Courts Act) as the investigation of ethical issues of Supreme Court justices and efforts to remove justices from their positions while the Supreme Court is hearing such a case of national public interest could affect general social stability.
Further, the lawyer also stated that the widespreading rumors about investigating ethical issues of Supreme Court justices would churn public unease. He said such actions would be perceived by the public as an indirect threat to the justices using state power and influence to reach a decision in the case, in a particular manner.
He noted that one of the fundamental principles of justice is that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, ensuring public confidence. As the Supreme Court is the highest authority for administering justice in the Maldives, interfering with the work of Supreme Court justices, whether by a private individual or a state official, is prohibited by Article 141(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives.
In the letter submitted to the court on Thursday, the lawyer also highlighted that if justices receive indirect threats of potential removal from office while hearing such a case of national public interest, he does not believe they will have the opportunity to work freely and independently without hesitation.
He highlighted that issuing court orders in the form of 'interim orders' before reaching a final judgment in such cases of public interest is a practice followed by courts in democratic societies as well.
The case referenced by the lawyer is one challenging the constitutionality of the changes made to Article 73 of the Constitution through Law No. 25/2024 (6th Amendment to the Constitution Act) ratified by the president on 30 November 2024. The amendment stipulates that a member of the People’s Majlis loses their seat if they change their political party or are expelled from their party. The case seeks to nullify this provision, arguing that it conflicts with the basic structure of the Maldives’ Constitution.
