Hearing on Anti-Defection Amendment: Supreme Court Resumes Proceedings After 13-Month Hiatus!
The Supreme Court has resumed hearings on a constitutional challenge filed by lawyer Ali Hussain seeking to nullify the sixth amendment to the Constitution, which mandates that Members of Parliament lose their seats for switching political parties. While the petitioner and the opposition MDP argue that the amendment violates the basic structure of the Constitution and the principles of a presidential system, the State has countered that the matter falls outside the court's jurisdiction, asserting that all legal procedures were strictly followed during the amendment's passage. The case is currently being presided over by a full bench of seven justices.
A constitutional challenge has been filed with the Supreme Court seeking to nullify the recently passed amendment outlining the circumstances under which Members of Parliament lose their seats. | Raajje MV
After a significant hiatus, the Supreme Court of the Maldives has resumed hearings on a constitutional challenge seeking to nullify an amendment that defines the circumstances under which Members of Parliament lose their seats.
What is the case?
This case has been filed with the Supreme Court seeking to annul the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. The petition was submitted by legal counsel Ali Hussain.
According to the sixth amendment to the Constitution, a Member of Parliament will lose their seat if they defect to another party after being elected on a political party's ticket, if an independent member joins a party, or if a member voluntarily resigns or is expelled from their party.
The petition filed with the Supreme Court contends that the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives was enacted in violation of Articles 4, 8, 26, 75, and 90, as well as the fundamental structure of the Constitution. Consequently, the petitioner seeks a ruling to declare the amendment null and void, asserting that it lacks constitutional legitimacy.
Case background:
The Supreme Court held its first hearing on this case on February 17, 2025. At the time, Ali Hussain submitted the matter to the apex court based on four primary grounds.
Furthermore, a request was previously submitted for an interim injunction to halt any proceedings regarding the disqualification of any Member of Parliament until the Supreme Court reaches a final verdict on the matter.
However, just moments before the hearing to decide on the temporary injunction was scheduled to begin, several Supreme Court justices were suspended. Following the events that unfolded at that time, no further hearings have been conducted in the case to this day.
Consequently, during the hearing held on Tuesday, April 14, the case resumed before a newly reconstituted bench, where the state proceeded with its response.
The case is being presided over by the full seven-member bench of the Supreme Court. The current bench consists of Chief Justice Abdul Ghani Mohamed, Justice Aisha Shujune Muhammad, Justice Ali Rasheed Hussain, Justice Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim, Justice Hussain Shaheed, Justice Abdulla Hameed, and Justice Mohamed Saleem.
What is the state’s position?
Counsel General of the Attorney General’s Office, Fathimath Haleem, stated that the grounds cited by the claimant cannot be considered valid, as the procedures stipulated in Chapter 12 of the Constitution for passing this amendment were fully followed.
The lawyer stated that he does not believe a constitutional case can be filed in the Supreme Court on the grounds that one article of the Constitution contradicts another. He explained that the definition of a constitutional matter applies to laws or parts of laws, regulations or parts of regulations, orders issued by state institutions, or actions and decisions taken by state employees that are in conflict with the Constitution. However, the lawyer noted that in this instance, the challenge is not directed at a specific law, but rather at an alleged contradiction between two separate articles within the Constitution itself.
The state attorney requested the court to rule that the Supreme Court lacks the jurisdiction to preside over this matter. Furthermore, the state argued that even if the court determines it has jurisdiction, it should conclude that there are no grounds to declare the amendment unconstitutional.
What does the petitioner say?
Ali Hussain argued that although the state claims the procedures outlined in Chapter 12 of the Constitution were followed in passing this amendment, the process of introducing the bill, conducting all three readings in Parliament, and ratifying it within just nine hours on the same day contradicts the underlying spirit of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the petitioner argued that there is no legal basis to exclude the Constitution from the definition of "law."
Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the amendment violates the fundamental structure of the Constitution. The legal counsel further argued that the amendment contravenes the "Basic Structure Doctrine," which prohibits alterations to the core characteristics and essential framework of the Constitution.
The lawyer stated that these amendments would introduce characteristics of a parliamentary system, despite the Maldives being a presidential republic. He further warned that such changes could lead to situations where the state faces irreparable consequences.
The lawyer noted that while the amendment stipulates that a member will lose their seat upon dismissal from a political party, it lacks specific details and effectively grants absolute power to the parties. He further explained that since the amendment refers to dismissals carried out in accordance with the law, the Political Parties Act would govern such cases. The petitioner also highlighted that the Political Parties Act is primarily structured to uphold the parties' own charters and internal regulations, thereby consolidating authority within the parties themselves.
Furthermore, the lawyer stated that this change undermines the privileges granted to members under Article 90 of the Constitution.
The lawyer stated that the responsibilities of parliamentarians include significant duties such as granting approval to cabinet ministers and appointing members to independent institutions. He argued that this amendment would allow political parties to exert influence and control over those decisions through their respective members.
Furthermore, the lawsuit contends that the law is structured in a manner that undermines and destabilizes the presidential system.
In the legal challenge submitted by Ali Hussain, he requested the court to rule that the recent legislative amendment cannot be applied retroactively to currently elected members of Parliament while the law is in effect.
What did MDP, which intervened in the case, have to say?
The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has also intervened in the case, with party spokesperson Anas Abdul Sattar presenting their legal arguments on the matter.
Anas stated that the MDP supports the arguments presented to the Supreme Court by the petitioner. He further noted that this amendment effectively strips the people of their power.
Ahmed Mauroof, the Legal Director of the MDP, also spoke on behalf of the party. Mauroof stated that while the state's response focused on the history and policy debates surrounding anti-defection, the case at hand is not actually about policy. Instead, he clarified that the legal challenge specifically seeks to have the amendment declared null and void.
Mauroof stated that although the term "Republic" may not be explicitly mentioned within the preamble as the State claims, the characteristics and nature of the Maldivian Republic are clearly enshrined within the Constitution. He argued that the proposed amendment contradicts these fundamental principles, noting that the defining characteristics of the State are explicitly detailed within the very first chapter.
