Constitutional amendment to synchronize two elections lacks constitutional legitimacy: Former Chief Justice Dr. Abdulla Didi
While he urged the public to vote "no" in next month's referendum regarding this amendment, opposition groups have also expressed concern, claiming it would undermine democracy; however, the government maintains that the change is a beneficial measure for the people aimed at reducing expenditures.
Former Chief Justice of the Maldives, Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi, speaking during RaajjeTV’s "Noonekey" campaign program. | RaajjeMV | Raajje MV
The former Chief Justice of the Maldives, Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi, has stated that the constitutional amendment brought to hold local council elections and parliamentary elections simultaneously lacks constitutional legitimacy.
Speaking on Raajje TV’s "Noonekey" campaign program on Tuesday night, Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi stated that the primary reason citizens must reject the upcoming referendum on April 4 is that the proposed amendment lacks constitutional legitimacy.
Elaborating on the matter, Dr. Abdulla Didi stated that any amendment brought to the Constitution must possess substantive legitimacy in addition to procedural or formal constitutional legitimacy.
The former Chief Justice stated that there is no doubt that the constitutional amendment to hold two elections simultaneously is an "abusive" and arbitrary change. He further noted that the amendment was implemented to undermine the authority of the Constitution, without any regard for constitutional or legal procedures.
Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi stated that the recent constitutional amendment is an attempt to hijack state institutions by utilizing a Parliament under the full control of the President. He further described the move as a major constitutional manipulation carried out through deception, asserting that the amendment lacks substantive legitimacy.
Constitutional experts assert that substantive legitimacy is forfeited under two specific conditions. This occurs when a President, commanding a parliamentary majority, exploits that control for personal interest. When such a majority is used to amend the Constitution with the intent of seizing control over state powers and institutions, it constitutes a fundamental loss of substantive legitimacy. Scholars characterize these actions as constitutional manipulation. It is a form of deception—a tampering with the Constitution designed to capture or exert absolute control over the institutions of the state.Former Chief Justice of the Maldives, Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi
President Muizzu's administration is conducting an intensive campaign to garner public support for a constitutional amendment aimed at holding presidential and parliamentary elections concurrently.
Meanwhile, the main opposition party, MDP, is conducting a vigorous nationwide campaign against the proposal to consolidate the two elections. Opposition figures and critics allege that the government’s push for this change is an attempt to diminish public oversight. Furthermore, the opposition claims the true objective behind this move is to consolidate political influence and pave the way for long-term authoritarian rule in the Maldives.
