Parliament shrinks Supreme Court ahead of ruling on party control of lawmakers

Controversial amendments to the judicature law were pushed through on Wednesday morning over fierce objections from the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party and prominent lawyers, who denounced the changes as an unconstitutional encroachment on judicial independence, decrying the move as a strategy to neutralise the pending judgment on the new constitutional floor-crossing prohibition. 

After a final debate at today’s sitting, Speaker Abdul Raheem Abdulla cited a problem with the electronic voting system and proceeded with a roll call, asking each MP individually for their vote. With 79 MPs in attendance, 68 voted in favour and nine voted against. 

Before the vote, three MDP MPs were forcibly removed from the chamber after protesting the speaker’s refusal to address concerns raised by parliament’s counsel general. 

Following the judiciary committee’s one-hour review of the bill on Tuesday, Fathmath Filza, parliament’s top lawyer, questioned the fairness of arbitrarily choosing and removing two Supreme Court justices.

When the bill was put to a vote, the only dissenter from the ruling party was Ahmed Azaan Marzooq, who walked out before the roll call. In a statement later posted on X, the PNC MP for Central Hithadhoo declared that he remained with the government but defended his belief that “this bill is against the constitution”.

Azaan cited article 75 of the constitution, which requires lawmakers to be “guided in their actions by considerations of national interest and public welfare foremost”. But Huraa MP Anara Naeem, who opposed the bill at the committee stage, decided to “go with the team” and assented.

The amendments state that the Judicial Service Commission must retroactively deem two Supreme Court justices to be “incompetent” within five days of the bill's ratification. Following this unorthodox after-the-fact determination, a recommendation must be made to parliament for their dismissal, after which MPs must make a decision on their removal within seven days (including holidays). 

The bill restated the constitutional provision on impeachment: a judge can be removed if the JSC finds that he or she is grossly incompetent or guilty of gross misconduct. A resolution submitted to the effect must be approved by a two-thirds majority of MPs present and voting.

“Ironically, the bill also mandates the state to provide lifelong benefits to the ‘incompetent’ justices impeached under the law,” observed MDP MP Meekail Naseem, echoing one of the concerns raised by the counsel general over the constitutional protection for judges to remain on the bench unless they breach ethical standards.

An hour after the passage of the bill, the JSC announced the suspension of Justices Husnu Suood, Mahaz Ali Zahir and Azmirelda Zahir. The decision was made after the Anti-Corruption Commission notified the judicial watchdog of an ongoing criminal investigation against the justices, the JSC said, referring to a legal requirement to temporarily relieve judges of duty when they are placed under investigation.

Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court canceled a hearing scheduled to rule on a stay order requested by former lawmaker Ali Hussain – the petitioner in the constitutional challenge – who sought an injunction on complying with the anti-defection provisions. 

Speaking to the Maldives Independent, Shamsul Falah, a Maldivian scholar and expert on constitutional law, called the swift passage of the bench reduction bill “a textbook example of the abuse of parliamentary urgency powers.” It demonstrated disregard for “fundamental constitutional principles such as the sovereignty of the people, separation of powers, judicial independence, the rule of law, and constitutional supremacy,” he added.

“Given that we have a president who has already changed certain laws relating to independent institutions( through his controlled parliament) to consolidate more power, we will likely see further executive aggrandizement. Some also call this democratic backsliding or erosion,” he said. 

“It’s another sad day for our constitution’s life.”

Mirroring the expedited passage of the constitutional amendments that triggered the dispute in November, events transpired at a dizzying speed. 

The following is a condensed timeline of the key developments over the past three days:

Monday, February 24

Tuesday, February 25

Wednesday, February 26