Amendment to reduce number of SC justices was passed contrary to committee's decision!

The bill proposing to reduce the number of Supreme Court justices has been passed without a vote at the People’s Majlis chamber, contrary to the Judiciary Committee's decision and despite concerns raised by Counsel General Fathimath Filza.

The Judiciary Committee of the People’s Majlis passed and sent the bill to the Parliament floor, proposing to reduce the number of Supreme Court justices, without considering the concerns raised by Parliament's Counsel General Fathimath Filza, and without any additional amendments.

The committee passed it after stating that there would be an opportunity to decide on Filza's comment on the floor. The motion to send the bill to the floor without amendments was proposed by MP for Hulhudhoo Constituency Mohamed Shahid. It was approved in the manner through the votes of lawmakers representing the main ruling People’s National Congress (PNC) present at the committee, except for MP for Huraa constituency Anara Naeem.

Anara voted to abstain from voting for either side. Two lawmakers representing the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP); MP for Kendhoo constituency Mauroof Zakir and MP for South Hithadhoo constituency Ibrahim Nazil, voted against forwarding the bill to the floor.

The Judiciary Committee passed the bill proposing to reduce the number of Supreme Court justices on Tuesday evening without any amendments.

However, the Parliament's Counsel General had submitted comments on some articles of the bill. The committee meeting, which was abruptly held at 10:15pm on Tuesday, was convened to make a decision on the matter.

In the Counsel General's comments, several points were highlighted with reference to Sections (a), (b), and (c) of the bill. As reducing the number of justices to five would require dismissing some currently serving justices, relevant comments have been included. According to Article 154 of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives, while outlining the principles for justices to remain in office and the manner of their dismissal, the Counsel General has stated that this occurs when the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) believes a justice is incompetent or has committed an act unbecoming of a justice, and subsequently submits this matter to the People’s Majlis.

The Counsel General expressed concern regarding how to comply with and implement the changes following parliament's approval of amendments to the number of Supreme Court justices. The Counsel General's comment further states that in such a situation, when the JSC does not question the competency of justices, a circumstance arises where the Judicial Service Commission has to determine the incompetence of certain justices.

The Counsel General stated in her comment that questions arise as to whether that is fair. She also stated that this was because the procedures for removing justices are specified in the JSC Act with reference to Article 154 of the Constitution.

According to Filza, who revealed details about the matter, the process of removing a justice from office begins following a complaint filed against a justice or when questions arise regarding their conduct, as per the current procedures established by law.

Among the additional points highlighted by Filza, she stated that while justices receive benefits and privileges when they retire honorably, it is not reasonable to grant privileges to justices who are determined to be incompetent by the JSC and approved by the People’s Majlis.

It has been noted that a person who serves the state and receives remuneration from the state has the right to respond and defend themselves in matters that affect them.

Speaking at the committee, MP Mauroof Zakir said that the resignation of Supreme Court justices along with this amendment is a matter of great concern. Mauroof said that the comment made by the Counsellor General regarding the amendment was in response to the dismissal of justices in situations where there were no disciplinary issues.

In addition to this, MP Nazil had also requested to extend the bill's work until April 25. Speaking at the committee, the member who presented the bill, Abdul Sattar Mohamed, questioned why the Counsel General's advice was provided as a comment rather than a legal opinion. However, what was observed was efforts being made to expedite forwarding the bill to the floor under pressure from lawmakers representing PNC.