—Shamsul Falaah, Advocate (Maldives) and independent legal scholar
Introduction
Although almost every government since the current Constitution has influenced, or at least tried to influence, the judiciary, this year has been one of the worst. Since the beginning of the year, there has been constant concern about the government’s growing influence over judicial independence.
Unpacking the Supreme Court
The first target was the Supreme Court bench. On 23 February 2025, a ruling party member proposed a bill to reduce the bench from seven to five. That same day, the party also discussed launching an inquiry into alleged misconduct by some of the sitting justices. But it didn’t stop there. The President went on to replace his appointee at the judicial watchdog, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). The new appointee? A ruling party member who had contested in the most recent parliamentary elections.
The proposed bill to unpack the Supreme Court was, allegedly, an attempt to undermine judicial independence and influence the bench in the ongoing case challenging the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution that introduced anti-defection rules for members of parliament. To provide brief context, the amendment was passed with the support of the ruling party’s supermajority in parliament. Given this, the amendment galvanized that majority in parliament. The basis of the challenge was that, because it allows parties to strip an MP of their seat by removing them from party membership, it undermines core constitutional principles, most importantly the separation of powers. By stripping members of their independence, they claimed, the amendment hands the executive effective control over the legislature.
The opposition condemned the unpacking bill. They called it an attempt to undermine judicial independence and subvert the court during the case. Given its timing, it is fair to raise questions about the bill’s intent.
First, the bill was proposed just a few days after the Supreme Court ruled that it does have jurisdiction to hear a constitutional case against the amendment. That ruling stood in direct contradiction to the Attorney General’s claim that the Court lacked such authority.
Second, if the case ends up going against the amendment, the ruling party faces the threat of losing members, which could open the door to factions and infighting. Given the existing controversy and dissent surrounding the amendment itself, this was not something the government could afford to handle. Therefore, politically, there was a need for the government to come up with a foolproof strategy to make sure the case would be decided in their favour.
Third, two Supreme Court justices, Husnu al Suood and Dr. Azmiralda Zahir, stated that the government, acting through the Attorney General, intimidated and threatened judges with disciplinary complaints in an attempt to influence the ongoing case.
On the night of 25 February 2025, the Judiciary Committee of the parliament approved the bill, and the full parliament passed it the following day. The Supreme Court had also scheduled a hearing for that day, but it was cancelled after the JSC suspended three of the justices. Since then, the case has been parked. One justice resigned, and the other two were removed in May 2025. The bill was not ratified; it was sent back for reconsideration. Instead of passing it, the parliament allowed the President to appoint justices to fill the vacant seats on the bench.
Politicization of judicial appointments
The next controversy over judicial independence arose when the JSC nominated a ruling party activist, Mohamed Shaheed, for appointment to the High Court.
Shaheed openly supported the President and the ruling party during both the presidential and parliamentary elections. He was seen on various platforms supporting the government and held the position of deputy minister until July 10. That very same day, the JSC opened applications for the High Court.
There was no transparency in the selection process. The list of candidates was made public only after the JSC had already made selections for the vacant seats. Following the JSC’s announcement, a lawyer who had unsuccessfully applied for the position sought an injunction from the Civil Court to prevent Shaheed’s appointment to the High Court. As soon as the case was filed, the JSC moved quickly to hold the appointment ceremony.
Following backlash from the public, Shaheed withdrew his application on the same day the ceremony was scheduled for his appointment.
Normalizing political gestures
The most recent act undermining judicial independence was the JSC’s decision to permit judges in the islands to formally receive and welcome the President during his visits to their respective islands. It was a practice that was criticized and controversial even during the constitution-making process.
In laying down the principle of judicial independence, Article 142 of the Maldivian Constitution states that judges are independent, and subject only to the Constitution and the law. It further provides that must decide matters in accordance with the Constitution and the law, without relying on any party, without fear of any party, and without discrimination.
In doing so, Article 15(g) provides that, to ensure judges perform their judicial duties without favour, bias, or prejudice, they must not be a member of a political party or actively involved in political activities, or a person holding an elected or appointed political office.
Article 32(a)(10) reinforces this by stating that judges shall not engage in political activities, as one of the standards in the Code of Conduct for Judges.
Principle 7 (Refraining from Political Activities) of the Code of Conduct for Judges states that non-participation in political activity is essential for judges to carry out their duties independently and impartially. It further noted additional points: First, judges must carry out their duties free from political influence. They must not engage in any political activity. They are also required to carry themselves, both in and out of court, in ways that preserve public confidence in their independence from political influence. Second, although not explicitly specified, judges must refrain from any conduct that, in the eyes of the public, could be perceived as political.
Looking at the tradition of decorations and dress codes in the islands to welcome the President, one will see signs with pictures and slogans showing political support for the President or the President’s party. Party songs echo through the jetty or harbor area. The people welcoming the President wear the color of their party. It’s not uncommon to see people in party-colored headscarves and thaakihaa (a Kufi-style cap worn by Maldivian men). Among such crowds, though dressed in a white silk robe, the presence of a judge in the island is likely to be perceived as a sign of support for the President or a political party of the President.
This is also the case when other political leaders visit the islands. It’s usually their supporters, or those aligned with their party, who show up. It is quite common that when the President visits an island, those who don’t support the President refrain from going to welcome him. And if they do, it’s either because of their job in the public service or to express a point of opposition. People see it as a political activity.
Based on these practices, it is reasonable to say that judges going to welcome the President during his visits to the islands would be perceived as showing support for the President and his political party. And for that reason, it is the same as being involved in a political activity.
Conclusion
As reflected in the above-mentioned provisions, the law expects judges to stay out of politics. Judicial independence was among the most vocal rallying cries during the reform movement that led to the current Maldivian Constitution. It remains one of its finest and most essential features.
However, one of the most promising constitutional promises, the very one the reform movement fought so hard to secure, is now being undone. Judicial independence in the Maldives has not had a calm year. What was once a proud feature of our constitutional framework is now under strain, tested by decisions and practices that chip away at its core.
Suggested citation: Shamsul Falaah, How Judicial Independence is Being Undone in the Maldives, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Sept. 7, 2025, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/how-judicial-independence-is-being-undone-in-the-maldives/
Comments