Five organizations urge against ratification of bill to downsize Supreme Court bench

Five organizations have urged President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu against ratifying the recent bill to amend the Judicature Act aimed at reducing the Supreme Court bench from seven to five justices.

The five organizations that urged against the ratification of the bill are: Transparency Maldives, Association for Democracy in Maldives, Save Maldives, Zero Waste Maldives and Mental Health Support Group.

The amendment to the Judicature Act was sponsored by Holhudhoo MP Abdul Sattar Mohamed. The bill was presented, debated on and accepted into the Parliament on February 25, and the Judiciary Committee passed it without any changes in a meeting held shortly after the vote. 

The amendment was passed on February 26 with a majority vote of 68-9 after three parliamentarians. 

The move to downsize the Supreme Court's bench followed weekslong allegations by the MDP that the government was seeking to dismiss some of the members of the top court’s bench to influence a case challenging a contentious amendment to add anti-defection provisions to the Constitution.

The constitutional amendment in question was submitted, passed and ratified in quick succession on November 20. The controversial amendment added three more circumstances where parliamentarians will lose their seat, including if they are expelled from their political party.

Former Kendhoo MP Ali Hussain, an attorney-at-law, filed a constitutional case with the top court on November 24, arguing that the amendment violates key provisions of the Constitution, as well as the basic structure doctrine.

The rushed passage of the judicature billl last week came less than one hour ahead of a hearing scheduled at the Supreme Court regarding a request for an injunction to suspend the enforcement of the anti-defection clauses.

But shortly before the hearing had been set to begin, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) announced that three Supreme Court justices – Husnu Al-Suood, Dr. Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir – had been suspended in light of criminal investigations against them by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). Suood subsequently resigned after raising serious allegations of government intimidation.

In a joint statement, the five organizations called on President Muizzu not to ratify the amendments. They also called on JSC to practice institutional and legal due diligence and immediately lift the sudden and questionable suspension of the Supreme Court justices.

The organizations underscored that the Bar Council of the Maldives has declared the above actions to be unconstitutional and also recognized related concerns raised in a petition on the matter submitted by the lawyers’ community to the Parliament.

They also expressed concern over the alarming actions of parliament to block the representation of the people's will in the legislature through the sixth amendment to the Constitution. This amendment was later challenged in the Supreme Court, which is the prescribed procedure in the Constitution when an amendment is considered unconstitutional.

As such, they emphasized the importance of the constitutional case submitted to the Supreme Court to be allowed to run its case.

“This case must not be disrupted through undue interference by the Executive or the Legislature, either directly or indirectly, by undermining the established Constitutional legal and institutional processes,” the statement read.

The organizations accused the Parliament of nullifying the Constitutional foundations of checks and balances between state powers, by passing legislation that directly attacks the Supreme Court. 

Notably, opposition parties, including the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the Democrats have accused the government of attempting to influence the country's highest judicial authority and subvert judicial independence.

Justice Dr. Azmiralda Zahir, who remains in suspension, also released a statement via her legal team, accusing the government of attempting to exert influence on her by leveraging the case against her husband.

In a statement on Thursday, Azmiralda’s legal team reiterated that she had not reached out to any judges to try to influence her husband's release. Instead, the legal team accused individuals in high-ranking government positions of leveraging the case as an attempt to influence Azmiralda through various institutions.