No basis to overturn anti-defection clauses, rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court decided on Wednesday that there’s no basis to overturn contentious anti-defection clauses written into the Constitution in 2024 that empower political parties to unseat parliamentarians.

The constitutional amendment in question was submitted, passed and ratified in quick succession in November 2024. It added three more circumstances where parliamentarians will lose their seat. They are:

• If a parliamentarian resigns from or is dismissed or expelled from the party that they were elected on behalf of
• If a parliamentarian switches parties or is dismissed or expelled from a party
• If an independent parliamentarian joins a party

Former Kendhoo MP Ali Hussain, an attorney-at-law, filed a constitutional case with the top court on November 24, 2024, seeking to have the provisions annulled. The main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) also intervened in the case.

The first hearing in the case was held on February 17, 2025, and the second hearing wasn’t held until over a year later, on April 14, following changes to the Supreme Court bench.

The Supreme Court delivered its much-anticipated verdict on Wednesday afternoon, reaching the decision with a majority of six out of the seven members of the bench.

Chief Justice Abdul Ghani Mohamed concluded that there was no basis to annul the provisions or establish that it cannot be applied to the 20th parliamentary assembly.

Key points raised by the Chief Justice:

• Anti-defection provisions aren’t unique to parliamentary systems of governance
• Such measures are taken to minimize internal strife within political parties
• No grounds to establish anti-defection provisions aren’t important in the Maldives
• Domestic situation of countries is taken into account when applying anti-defection provisions
• Anti-defection provisions do not contradict fundamental rights, and Ali Hussain failed to sufficiently prove otherwise
• Anti-defection provisions do not violate the supremacy of the Constitution

The sole dissenting voice was that of Justice Aisha Shujoon, who opinioned that the amendment should be annulled as the change was made outside the procedures set down under Article 262 (b) of the Constitution, and poses an obstruction to fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of members of Parliament set down under Article 75 of the Constitution.

Hearings in the case had stalled after the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) suspended three of the judges in the original bench, citing an ongoing criminal investigation against them by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) – the details of which remain unclear.

Husnu Ali Suood resigned in March 2025 after accusing President Muizzu of intimidating the Supreme Court’s judges and subverting judicial independence, while the JSC later opened misconduct investigations against the other two judges, Mahaz Ali Zahir and Dr. Azmiralda Zahir. Despite claiming that the allegations against them were baseless and that the investigations by the JSC were tainted by the denial of due process to them, the two were dismissed by the Parliament in May 2025.