Committee backs Saleem and Hameed for Supreme Court

The Parliament’s Judiciary Committee on Wednesday provided their backing to President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu’s nominees for the two vacancies in the bench of the Supreme Court; High Court’s sitting judge Mohamed Saleem and former judge Abdulla Hameed.

The Parliament had gone into recess a day after dismissing Supreme Court judges Dr. Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir on May 14.

The letter from President Muizzu recommending Saleem and Hameed as replacements at the Supreme Court was read at the Parliament on Monday as it reopened for the second session of the year after recess. The letter was subsequently sent to the Judiciary Committee for review.

The Constitution dictates that to qualify as a Supreme Court judge, an individual must be at least 30 years old, possess a first degree in Islamic Shariah or Law, and have at least seven years of experience as a judge or practicing lawyer.

There has been some debate on whether Saleem qualifies for the top court.

Saleem was appointed as a judge at the High Court three years ago on August 9, 2022, prior to which he served for 12 years as one of the court’s legal officers.

There has therefore been some legal debate as to whether Saleem therefore fits the criteria.

But during a meeting of the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Holhudhoo MP Abdul Sattar Mohamed said that he believes both Saleem and Hameed qualify for the Supreme Court.

“I believe this [the provision] in talking about the most basic criteria. But there’s some higher-level of work [he has done]. For example, both judges and lawyers do legal work. Since this is the case, I don’t believe there’s any room to establish that he doesn’t qualify,” said Abdul Sattar.

“Its not just the ink that we need to look at, but also the intention.”

Abdul Sattar presented a motion to vote in favor of the two candidates. The motion was seconded by North Feydhoo MP Ismail Nizar and passed with the unanimous consensus of the committee members present, including two members of the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP); South Hithadhoo MP Ibrahim Nazil and Vaikaradhoo MP Hussain Ziyad (Fittey).

The dismissal of Azmiralda and Mahaz from the Supreme Court had come despite serious concerns regarding lack of due process and procedural fairness in the disciplinary proceedings against them by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

On February 26, Azmiralda, Mahaz and then-Supreme Court justice Husnu Al-Suood were suspended by the JSC, citing an ongoing investigation by the against them by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). All three were hearing a case challenging the controversial move by the ruling People's National Congress (PNC) – who hold a supermajority in the Parliament - to write anti-defection clauses into the Maldivian constitution.

Suood resigned from the top court in protest of JSC’s decision, and the commission later opened misconduct investigations against Azmiralda and Mahaz, accusing them of conspiring to influence a Criminal Court judge.

On May 4, the JSC asked the Parliament to approve their dismissal. The Judiciary Committee, which reviewed the recommendation, decided to deny Azmiralda and Mahaz the chance to defend themselves against the allegations against them. The next day, the committee voted in favor of their dismissal in a closed-door meeting that was boycotted by members of the MDP. The decision came despite the Parliament’s Counsel General Fathimath Filza advising the committee that the JSC had failed to follow due process and proper procedure in making the decision.

However, the committee’s chair Husnee Mubarik, a politician from the PNC, said that the council does not share Filza’s opinion.

Both Azmiralda and Mahaz - both of whom claim that the allegations against them are baseless and that the investigations by the JSC were tainted by the denial of due process to them - were dismissed with majority votes of 68-11 on May 14.

The case against the Supreme Court justices stem from the allegation that they exerted their influence over the Criminal Court to secure the release of Azmiralda’s husband, Dr. Ismail Latheef, an anesthesiologist, who was arrested during a police raid on a massage parlor in Male’. However, Criminal Court judge Ibrahim Zihunee’s statement to JSC shows Mahaz had called him after Latheef was already released from police custody.

Meanwhile, the then-assistant registrar of High Court, Hussain Mohamed Haneef, who testified against Azmiralda and Mahaz at the JSC, was recently appointed to a senior position at state-run utility company, Fenaka Corporation.

Suood, Azmiralda and Mahaz' suspension by the JSC on February 26 had come less than one hour ahead of a hearing scheduled at the Supreme Court regarding a request for an injunction to suspend the enforcement of controversial anti-defection clauses that were written into the Constitution last year. It also came shortly after the ruling PNC used its supermajority in the Parliament to push through amendments to the Judicature Act to downsize the Supreme Court bench from seven to five justices.

The ACC declined to provide any information regarding the their criminal investigation against the trio, which had triggered their suspension in the first place.

The JSC had come under fire from both local and international organizations over its decision to push for the dismissal of the Supreme Court justices. Those that have expressed concern over the situation include the Bar Council of Maldives, Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, the Human Rights Watch, the Commonwealth Law Association, the Law Association for Asia and the Pacific (LAWASIA), and the Bar Association of India.

President Muizzu, whose administration has been accused of deliberately undermining the country’s judicial independence, denied these claims in a press briefing on May 3, describing the events that fueled the allegations as mere “coincidences.”