The People’s Majlis has rejected a resolution alleging that courts in the Maldives are deliberately discriminating between individuals in remand decisions rather than safeguarding their rights, with the vote carried by the majority held by President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu’s People’s National Congress (PNC).

The resolution, submitted by MP for South Galolhu constituency Meekail Ahmed Naseem during Monday’s sitting, was voted down by 56 lawmakers, with only 10 lawmakers voting in favor of accepting it.

Meekail’s resolution argued that the courts, described as the most important institutions in the justice system, are engaging in deliberate discrimination instead of protecting citizens’ rights, and that a clear pattern of differential treatment in cases brought before them has become increasingly visible.

It cited several examples. In one case, after a young girl was found injured on the rooftop of a building in Malé City on the night of 18 April 2025, those arrested were remanded for only three days. In contrast, during a peaceful gathering organized by the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) on October 3 in the capital, where officers of the Maldives Police Service (MPS) used disproportionate force and arrested many participants, the Criminal Court ordered 15-day remand periods for those detained.

Meekail further noted that four individuals arrested on October 27 for robbing a large sum of money from Bank of Maldives (BML) employees at Velana International Airport (VIA) were remanded for only five days. Yet, on the same day, a person accused of attempting to leave a café in the capital without paying for a meal, who told the court he had been hungry and had no intention of committing a crime, was remanded for 10 days.

He argued that individuals suspected of major criminal offenses are receiving shorter remand periods, while those accused of minor offenses face longer detention.

The resolution concluded that such departures from equality and justice, and the judiciary’s discriminatory treatment of the public, would systematically obstruct citizens’ access to justice.