The UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Diego García-Sayán, has expressed dismay at the Maldives Supreme Court’s decision not to accept the request made by two convicted Supreme Court justices to have their case reviewed.

In a press release on Thursday, the UN human rights expert said he was concerned by reports of interference and serious irregularities in the judicial procedures that led to the convictions.

Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and Justice Ali Hameed were arrested on charges related to influencing official conduct of judges in the wake of the February 1 Supreme Court decision which ordered the reinstatement of 12 suspended opposition MPs and the release and retrial of nine political leaders. Following the arrest of the two justices, the remaining three justices issued a new order, allegedly at the request of President Abdulla Yameen, overturning its previous unanimous ruling to free the nine leaders, noted the UN.

Both justices were convicted by the Criminal Court in May and affirmed with a reduced sentence by the High Court in early June. The cases were filed for appeal in the Supreme Court on 13 June but rejected.

“I am dismayed by the Judges Council’s decision not to accept the application made by Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and Justice Ali Hameed, despite the reported procedural irregularities in the lower courts,” said Garcia-Sayan. “Due process issues included the use of closed hearings without valid justification; use of protected witnesses without due explanation;  and insufficient time given to the defence to prepare and submit a witness list, further hampered by the difficulties faced by the defendants in accessing their lawyers in Maafushi Prison.”

In the press release, the UN stated that the parliament has approved the selection of two judges of the High Court to the Supreme Court, and appointed one of the current Supreme Court's justices, Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi, as the new chief justice.

The Special Rapporteur said: “The Basic Principles on the independence of the judiciary provide that judges can only be removed for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties, and only in accordance with a procedure that meet established fair trial standards. In particular, removal decisions should be subject to an independent judicial review.”

“The appointment of two new justices before the end of the removal procedure of Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and Justice Ali Hameed cast serious doubts on their status, and, consequently, on the status of two top judges appointed by the Parliament on 27 June.”

He also said that the Maldives government has not responded to his concern about the arrest and detention of the two justices while also noting that his predecessor raised serious concerns over the composition of the Judicial Service Commission, which is in charge of the selection and appointment of judges, which is largely perceived as being inadequate and highly politicized.

“I wish to restate that it is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason,” concluded García-Sayán.