Seat‑loss amendment: No interim order yet as Supreme Court concludes hearings

The Supreme Court on Tuesday concluded hearings on the petition seeking to annul the constitutional amendment that allows MPs to lose their seats if they switch parties or are expelled from the party under which they were elected.

The case was last heard on February 17 last year, when the court decided the petition could proceed despite an objection from the Attorney General’s Office. A subsequent hearing scheduled for February 26 was cancelled shortly after the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) suspended three Supreme Court justices, Husnu Al Suood, Dr. Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir, over ongoing Anti‑Corruption Commission (ACC) investigations.

Suood later resigned, while Parliament dismissed Azmiralda and Mahaz without granting them adequate opportunity to respond. The composition of the bench has since changed significantly, but the current panel has continued the case based on the decisions of the former bench.

At Tuesday’s hearing, the Attorney General’s Office argued that the power to legislate and amend the Constitution lies with Parliament, and that anti‑defection provisions are common internationally to prevent floor‑crossing. The state also noted that MPs retain the right to appeal to the Supreme Court in disputes arising from loss of seat, a safeguard Parliament itself established. The AG’s Office therefore requested a declaration that the amendment is constitutional.

Representing the petitioner, lawyer Sheena Mohamed argued that the amendment effectively gives political parties the power to determine whether an elected representative completes their term. She said this undermines the sovereignty of the people and violates Articles 4, 26, 70 and 75 of the Constitution. She added that if the Constitution provided a people‑initiated recall mechanism, such an amendment could be enacted without infringing on citizens’ rights.

MP Ali Hussain requested two interim orders:

• An order preventing the removal of any MP under the amendment until the case is decided.  

• An order barring disciplinary or criminal investigations against judges, and preventing any action to remove them, until the Supreme Court issues its ruling.

Chief Justice Abdul Ghani Mohamed said the court will inform the parties once a decision is made regarding the interim orders. He added that if the bench requires no further clarification after reviewing the case, the hearings are considered concluded. No date was given for any further hearing.