Gag orders cannot be issued without an act of Parliament; current order is unconstitutional: Ali Hussain

Legal expert Ali Hussain has stated that gag orders cannot be issued unless authorized through legislation passed by the Parliament, asserting that the current order is unconstitutional.

Speaking on a RaajjeTV talk show, legal expert Ali Hussain stated that in a presidential monarchy, even rulings on contempt of court would ultimately be determined by the monarch. He further noted that under the current system, once a sitting president secures control of the People’s Majlis, they are automatically transformed into an absolute monarch.

Ali Hussain noted that, according to legal principles, the court itself is responsible for making such determinations. He stated that while a regulation was initially established regarding the protection of the court's sanctity in relation to the issuance of this order, any measures concerning contempt of court must be formally enacted through legislation by the People's Majlis.

Ali Hussain stated that the Attorney General's Office should be tasked with drafting the legislation, adding that he does not believe such orders can be issued without the Parliament passing a formal law.

To enact a law, the instruction to draft the legislation must be issued to the Attorney General’s Office. Subsequently, a designated individual within the Attorney General’s Office in the Maldives would draft the bill. Following this, it must be passed by the People’s Majlis. I do not believe such orders can be issued without the Parliament passing a law to that effect. A judge can only exercise powers specifically stipulated and defined within the Constitution. They are authorized to issue only those types of orders that are explicitly prescribed. Furthermore, there is a fundamental issue here that is not reflected in this order. It is unconstitutional. While I believe this order must be complied with for the time being, that obligation remains only until it is overturned by a higher court, such as the High Court.

Attorney-at-Law Ali Hussain

Ali Hussain stated that the order was issued in direct violation of the Constitution. He noted that according to Article 42 and the broader framework of the Constitution, any action against an individual must be preceded by due notice.

He stated that when taking action or issuing an order against an individual, they must be granted the opportunity to defend themselves. He further noted that it was procedural error to issue the order against his client, Hussain Fiyaz Moosa, without even questioning him beforehand.

"For instance, this order was issued against my client, Hussain Fiyaz Moosa, without even questioning him. As his legal counsel, I maintain that he is entitled to the right of defense and must be served due notice. Issuing this order in Fiyaz’s absence is a fundamental error and constitutes a constitutional violation. Furthermore, under the principles of natural justice, if an action is to be taken against an individual, they must first be given the opportunity to be heard. They should be asked for an explanation or why such an action should not be pursued. This principle is even evident when we refer to the text of the Holy Quran."

Attorney-at-Law Ali Hussain

Ali Hussain stated that issuing such orders outside of established procedures is unconstitutional. He noted that similar orders to withhold passports have been issued in the past, emphasizing that if a person's passport is to be seized, they must be given the opportunity to present a defense or provide reasons why the travel ban should not be imposed. Ali Hussain further asserted that the legal process must be followed to that extent.