Major accusations, dismissal, yet not a single question in 14 months: Is this not injustice?

Maldivians shed blood for a new Constitution to ensure justice would belong to everyone—not only to those favored by rulers. Leaders were appointed, institutions established, and billions from public funds spent in pursuit of that ideal. Yet today, a pressing question remains: is this actually being achieved?

Fourteen months have passed since three justices of the Maldives’ highest court, the Supreme Court, were abruptly suspended and later dismissed from office. The investigation launched against them by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has since become a defining test of the country’s justice system.

The ACC investigation remains shrouded in uncertainty, with the accused justices themselves left in the dark about what is taking place. Their sudden suspension—which came after ACC had informed the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) that it was investigating a matter while the Supreme Court was hearing a major case tied to government interests—marked an unprecedented moment in Maldivian judicial history. Despite a year having passed, not a single question regarding the allegations has been put to the three justices. The prolonged silence has intensified public concern over the conduct of state institutions.

The controversy traces back to one of the country’s most politically charged periods. The Parliament, dominated by the administration of President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu, swiftly passed a constitutional amendment stipulating that members of parliament would lose their seats if they switched parties or were expelled. As soon as the amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court, lawyers representing Attorney General Ahmed Usham argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that it could proceed. From that moment, political tensions escalated rapidly.

Soon after, signals emerged on reducing the Supreme Court bench from seven judges to five—widely viewed as a sign that the ruling People's National Congress (PNC) was preparing to assert its dominance in Parliament. Then came JSC’s dramatic suspension of then-Supreme Court justices Husnu Al Suood, Dr. Azmiralda Zahir, and Mahaz Ali Zahir. On February 26, 2025, the judges were already dressed in their judicial robes and preparing to enter the courtroom when the suspension took effect. Local and international legal experts argued at the time that the move appeared designed to influence the outcome of the case before the court.

What followed only deepened the controversy. Suood later resigned, while Mahaz and Azmiralda were removed from office through a parliamentary vote backed by the PNC’s supermajority. The Supreme Court bench was subsequently reshaped, and the parliamentary seat case—after lingering before the court for more than a year—was ultimately decided in line with the state’s arguments.

Yet perhaps the most alarming aspect of the entire affair is the manner in which the investigation itself has unfolded. Nearly 14 months after the ACC launched its probe into the three former Supreme Court justices, none of them have been questioned about the allegations. No statements have been taken, nor have they been formally updated on the status of the case. Even more striking, the JSC only forwarded investigative statements related to the justices six months after they were dismissed, while it later emerged that the ACC itself requested those documents only after the same six-month period had passed.

For 15 months, the three individuals have remained under the cloud of an unresolved investigation without being asked a single question. The consequences extend far beyond legal uncertainty. Whether pursuing legal practice or other employment, the stigma of an active investigation follows them. In a deeply polarized climate, being viewed as anti-government or disfavored by the administration can discourage clients and employers alike from associating with them out of fear of repercussions.

This treatment has been imposed on three legal scholars who obtained advanced education in law both in the Maldives and abroad, built extensive careers in the legal sector, and authored numerous academic papers and books.

Serious allegations have also emerged regarding the ACC’s own conduct. Azmiralda alleged that the letter sent by the ACC to the JSC claiming an investigation was underway had been issued before any actual investigation had commenced, solely to protect the position of ACC President Adam Shamil. She further stated that although the ACC informed the JSC that it was investigating a criminal matter, none of the judges had been informed of any such accusations beforehand.

Azmiralda additionally alleged that the ACC’s communication to the JSC was sent outside the commission’s established procedures and regulations, and that the information provided by Shamil was false. Claiming that this amounted to an abuse of office intended to interfere with judicial independence, she filed a complaint seeking an investigation into Shamil himself. That complaint, however, was never investigated.

Attempts were made today to obtain comment from the ACC regarding the investigation into the three justices, but no response had been received at the time of publication of this report.

Justice, oppression, and the protection of reputation are among the principles most emphasized in Islam. Safeguarding a person’s dignity is not a privilege reserved for those in power or those holding high office. Both Islam and the Maldivian Constitution affirm that justice and the protection of reputation must be guaranteed equally to every citizen—not granted selectively based on loyalty to those in authority.

While the ACC continues to cite budgetary limitations, institutions responsible for overseeing the commission must also confront the consequences of investigations that remain unresolved for years. At the same time, while the ACC moves swiftly to defend its own reputation when accused of wrongdoing, it must also answer for situations in which its own actions inflict reputational harm on others.

When state institutions allow investigations to drag on indefinitely while the dignity and livelihoods of individuals erode under suspicion, it marks a dangerous departure from the principles of justice. The unresolved allegations against the judges, alongside the unresolved complaint against the ACC President, stand as stark reminders that lingering questions over the independence of the Maldives’ judicial and investigative institutions remain far from answered.