Judges suspension undermines judicial independence, UN expert says

A United Nations expert on Thursday raised concerns over disciplinary measures taken against three judges of the Supreme Court, suggesting that the actions may interfere with judicial independence and obstruct judicial review of recent constitutional amendments.

The remarks come as the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) inquiry committee decided to dismiss suspended Supreme Court judges Mahaz Ali Zahir and Dr Azmiralda Zahir Thursday evening.

The JSC made the decision at a meeting in the case of Azmiralda and Mahaz allegedly influencing the Criminal Court to decide on the arrest and remand of Azmiralda’s husband, IGMH doctor Ismail Latheef from a massage parlour.

Margaret Satterthwaite, UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, issued a statement expressing concern about the suspension of Azmiralda and Mahaz, as well as now resigned Husnu Al Suood. The three judges were reportedly suspended in relation to their stance on a constitutional amendment passed in November 2023, introducing anti-defection measures for members of Parliament.

“I am concerned about a series of actions which, separately and in combination, appear to be aimed at undermining the Supreme Court’s judicial review of this amendment,” Satterthwaite said.

She also referred to legislative changes passed on 25 February, which amended the Judicature Act to reduce the number of Supreme Court judges from seven to five. The amendment, which had since been returned to the parliament without ratification, also required the JSC to recommend two judges for removal from the bench on grounds of incompetence.

On 26 February, the president of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) informed the JSC that anonymous complaints had been filed against the three justices. The complaints were linked to the judges’ earlier involvement in deliberations concerning the constitutional amendment. Following this, the JSC suspended the three judges and initiated separate disciplinary proceedings. One of the judges, Husnu Suood, has since resigned.

“The disciplinary proceedings brought against three of the Supreme Court’s Justices appear to violate the principle that judges can only be dismissed on serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence and in accordance with fair procedures guaranteeing objectivity and impartiality as provided for by the Constitution or the law,” Satterthwaite said.

She also noted that legal representatives chosen by Azmiralda and Mahaz were not allowed to speak during the disciplinary hearings, and that the hearings were not held in public.

The Special Rapporteur confirmed that she is in contact with the government of the Maldives regarding the matter.

In a separate but related investigation, the ACC is probing both Azmiralda and Mahaz for allegedly influencing Criminal Court judges in multiple cases. Azmiralda, in turn, has accused ACC President Adam Shamil of interfering in the trial process and providing false information, although her complaint to the police was not accepted.

The JSC is also handling several other cases tied to this unfolding saga:

Azmiralda, Mahaz, and former judge Husnu Suood were suspended in February, just as the Supreme Court was set to hear arguments related to a contentious constitutional amendment. The amendment would make Members of Parliament lose their seat if expelled from their party—a clause that could significantly reshape the political landscape.

The timing of the suspensions effectively stalled the case, as the court was left with only four active judges. As per the Courts Act, constitutional cases must be heard by a bench of at least five.

In the interim, former High Court Chief Justice Hussain Shaheed has been appointed to the bench, though the court has yet to schedule a hearing on the constitutional matter.