Abusive judicial discretion in the Maldives

Eight years ago, the Maldives adopted a new constitution, which was claimed to be a democratic constitution promising a nomocracy with the cardinal features of a modern constitution: protection of fundamental rights and freedoms(1); separation of powers(2); popular sovereignty(3); supremacy of the constitution(4); free and fair elections(5); and judicial independence(6).

As is usual in any other case of constitutional supremacy, broad powers are vested in the courts, from the deciding of trivial matters to the declaration of any statute or regulation or decision unconstitutional and the making of any order(7). Despite this established constitutional mechanism, the Maldivian courts have restricted the media’s right(8) to report court proceedings(9) and the individuals’ freedom of speech(10); thus eroding the principles of open justice(11) and the popular sovereignty that is guaranteed in the Constitution. In particular, the Supreme Court has interfered in the autonomy of the constitutional organisms and of the legal profession.

Severe criticism has been poured on the intemperate decisions of the Maldivian SC; this criticism stems from the reactions of the public to the opinions expressed by public officials and also of the individual opinions expressed that were based on grounds of contempt of court.