TM: Referendum Resolution Must Include Arguments For and Against to Amend the Law
The report highlights the need for legislative amendments to establish spending limits for all political parties and individuals campaigning in future referendums.
Transparency Maldives has conducted a legal review concerning the upcoming elections. | EC | Elections Commission
Transparency Maldives has stated that the law must be amended to require that information papers provided during referendums held under presidential decree include both supporting and opposing perspectives on the issue.
Transparency Maldives has conducted a legal review regarding upcoming elections, sharing its findings and observations with the Commission. The report also outlines specific areas identified for necessary improvement.
Among these recommendations, it was stated that the law should be amended to mandate the provision of balanced information, including arguments both in favor of and against the matter at hand. The agency noted that under current regulations, when a referendum is conducted via presidential decree, the information papers are only required to include points supporting the proposal.
Furthermore, Transparency Maldives emphasized that this amendment is crucial to ensuring that future referendums align with Venice Commission standards, guaranteeing that voters have access to high-quality and equitable information.
Transparency Maldives further noted that current legislation lacks any provision requiring referendum questions to specify the constitutional articles mandating the vote. Furthermore, the organization highlighted that the law does not require voters to be provided with a detailed explanation of the potential consequences or outcomes of the proposed changes.
Consequently, Transparency Maldives has called for amendments to mandate that referendum questions clearly specify the constitutional articles being amended and the resulting implications. The organization also urged that if a bill requiring a referendum contains multiple distinct issues, each must be separately identified within the question. Furthermore, it highlighted the need for reforms that empower the Elections Commission to return questions that do not meet these standards for review before the presidential decree is finalized.
Transparency Maldives noted that these changes align with the standards set by the Venice Commission to ensure the clarity of referendum questions. Furthermore, the organization emphasized that these amendments ensure constitutional changes are not merely a formality for obtaining authorization, but rather a meaningful decision made by the citizens.
Furthermore, the report states that the law must be amended to establish spending limits for all political parties and individuals campaigning in future referendums.
Transparency Maldives highlighted further concerns, noting that while the law mandates a minimum period of 14 days for the publication of the voter registry, this timeframe is inconsistent with the minimum of 25 days required for the submission of complaints and the subsequent appeals process.
As a result, individuals incorrectly removed from or added to the registry in future votes will lack a legal remedy before election day. Consequently, it was noted that the law must be amended to either extend the registry publication period to 45 days, in line with general election standards, or establish an expedited grievance mechanism specifically tailored for referendums.
Under current legislation, a referendum is deemed successful if it receives more than 50 percent of the valid votes cast. Furthermore, the law does not mandate a minimum voter turnout threshold for the results to be valid. This legal framework was previously applied during the Addu referendum—the only such vote held to date—where the outcome became legally binding despite a voter turnout of only 37 percent.
Transparency Maldives emphasizes that constitutional referendums intended to bring permanent changes to the framework of national elections require a higher level of democratic legitimacy than a simple majority of those who cast their ballots. Consequently, the organization stated that the People’s Majlis must amend the law to ensure that referendums held under Article 262(b) of the Constitution are passed only if they receive the support of a specific percentage of total registered voters, rather than a mere majority of those who participate in the vote.
