"No coincidences": Suood on the unfreezing of the Supreme Court

To former Supreme Court justice Husnu Suood, that timing is not coincidence but design.

"There are no coincidences in such matters," he told Ithuru Vaahaka in his first detailed interview since resigning from the bench in March 2025, describing what he believes was a timeline "agreed between the Supreme Court and the government" to hold the cases back until after April's council elections.

Suood went further, calling for Supreme Court justices to be subject to removal by public recall vote and arguing that without structural reform of the Majlis, no institution in the country can function independently.

Suood is one of the most senior lawyers in the country. He previously served as Chief Judge of the Civil Court, sat on the first Human Rights Commission established to investigate the murder of Evan Naseem, served in the constituent assembly that drafted the 2008 constitution, and held office as Attorney General. He has also authored several authoritative books and papers on Maldivian law.

In my view, the people do not wish for the constitution to be amended frequently or played around with in a way that diminishes its sanctity and respect. They want the framework to remain unchanged and to preserve the stability provided by the current constitutional arrangements.

From 2004 to 2008, the constitution was reconstituted through immense public effort. It reflected the ideas and consultations of the people, with near-direct participation. For the first time, the public saw Majlis proceedings live, with the constituent assembly broadcast nationwide. The entire nation remained vigilant, with all eyes fixed on the process.

Given the effort that went into its creation, people do not wish to see such a document altered lightly. Of course, there were other factors that contributed to the result.

What people want is certainty. This particular change, on its own, may not have had dramatic implications. But what concerned people was what might follow.

Different narratives were presented by President Muizzu on different occasions. At one point, it was suggested that the candidate with the highest number of votes would win the presidential election, eliminating the need for a runoff. In conjunction, some claimed that there may not even be an election in 2028.

This loss of certainty – this lack of clarity about what may come next or what lay behind the proposal – is what worries the public.

In my view, the delays were due to political influence. The evidence lies in the timeline: the cases remained stalled for a prolonged period, yet immediately after the election, MP Sinan’s disputed seat case proceeded, along with another constitutional matter.

This suggests that a timeline had been agreed between the Supreme Court and the government. These developments did not occur in isolation or by coincidence. There are no coincidences in such matters. I believe this was planned.

The first question is the JSC’s mandate. Even now, its role is to recruit or nominate judges, address disciplinary issues, and in specific circumstances recommend removal. It must not go beyond this. In particular, the JSC must not be involved in the administration of courts. One cannot be both the watchdog and the administrator.

Even recruitment must be insulated from political influence. Judges should be selected from a pool that has completed prescribed training or passed a standardised examination, similar to bar exams for lawyers. That would prevent hand-picking and rushed appointments.

The JSC’s oversight body – the Majlis judiciary committee – is not effective. There is collusion. Traditionally, the JSC president has been an MP, which enables coordination between the JSC and the committee. The last three presidents were MPs. I believe the JSC president should be a judge. That would give judges confidence that they can function independently, without political pressure.

With regard to the Supreme Court, I would now suggest that justices be subject to removal through a public recall vote.

The first and most important step is to allow the president to govern without the constant threat of a no-confidence motion. That threat is what drives the president to control the Majlis.

If that threat did not exist, the Maldives would have a far better chance of having an effective parliament that holds the government to account. Today, MPs are prevented from speaking or voting freely because the Majlis is effectively in the president’s hands due to this pressure.

An alternative arrangement is needed. Some argue that this can only be resolved through a parliamentary system, though I am not prescribing that specifically.

Look at what happened during Dr [Mohamed[ Waheed’s administration – he had no parliamentary support and could not govern effectively. Then consider 2015–2017 under President [Abdulla] Yameen, where efforts were focused on disqualifying MPs, removing opposition members, and controlling the chamber. All of this stems from the same structural issue.

A recall vote is one option, though the criteria for triggering it would need careful design. Alternatively, we could introduce a system similar to the United States, with impeachment proceedings involving judges and lawyers in a formal trial process.

Many are concerned about the state of the country, but there is no immediate trigger pushing people into mass protest. Today’s situation is very different from 2003 or 2004.

People are under economic pressure. This is a hallmark of constrained systems. When individuals are tied to loans, rent, and financial obligations, they cannot afford to be arrested. Losing a job or facing detention can collapse an entire household.

As a result, even when there is anger, people are restrained. Only a sudden, catalytic event – like the death of Evan Naseem in 2003 – can break that restraint.

No. The system must change. Without reforming how the Majlis is constituted and operates, meaningful change is not possible.

The functioning of the Supreme Court, anti-corruption bodies, the Human Rights Commission, and the Elections Commission all depend on parliament. If parliament is ineffective, none of these institutions can function independently.

It is the Majlis that must be reformed. Without that, we cannot salvage the future of the Maldives.

     

Saif Fathih is a columnist at the Maldives Independent and a serving member of the Malé City Council for Galolhu North. With his educational background in communications, international studies and public policy, he previously worked as a journalist, editor and public policy advisor, with roles including senior policy director at the ministry of national planning and editor of Ocean Weekly Magazine. Saif began his career as a radio producer and presenter at Minivan Radio, writer for Minivan Daily, and translator for the British High Commission and the European Union Mission to Sri Lanka and the Maldives. He is also the host of Ithuru Vaahaka, the Maldives Independent podcast.