
Commonwealth association urges parliament to halt judges' impeachment
The CLA stated it would continue monitoring the situation, alongside the Maldivian Bar Council and a UN Special Rapporteur.
The Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) has called on the Maldivian Parliament to withdraw the impeachment proceedings against Supreme Court Justices Mahaz Ali Zahir and Azmiralda Zahir if they are not granted the right to a full defence.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) had earlier recommended the removal of the two justices, alleging that they had influenced a decision by the Criminal Court concerning the arrest and detention of Dr Ismail Latheef—Azmiralda’s husband—following an incident at a massage parlour. The matter was forwarded to Parliament and is currently under review by the Judiciary Committee.
In a statement issued on Saturday, the CLA stated that the JSC Act, the Maldivian Constitution, and international treaties to which the Maldives is party require that the judges be afforded full due process rights in any removal proceedings. The association highlighted that a failure to meet these procedural safeguards would render the proceedings incomplete.
The CLA outlined specific rights it said must be afforded to the judges, including:
-
Adequate time and notice to respond to the charges
-
Opportunity to appear before the JSC and present their defence
-
Right to present evidence and question witnesses
-
Access to legal representation throughout the process
According to the CLA, the Judiciary Committee must assess whether these rights were upheld before continuing with the process. If any of the procedural requirements are unmet, the association has recommended discontinuing the case.
The CLA stated it would continue monitoring the situation, alongside the Maldivian Bar Council and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.
In the case of Justice Azmiralda, 17 pieces of oral evidence and multiple witnesses were submitted in her defence. Requests to hear these witnesses were not granted by the JSC. The final report of the JSC’s inquiry committee did not take this evidence into account.
Separately, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) is investigating allegations that the two judges attempted to exert undue influence on the Criminal Court. The JSC’s decision to suspend the judges was based in part on a letter from the ACC.
Justice Azmiralda has also lodged complaints alleging misconduct by ACC President Adam Shamil, including accusations of interference and providing false information. The police reportedly declined to accept the latter complaint.
The judges were suspended in February, shortly before a scheduled hearing concerning the constitutionality of amendments that would allow MPs to lose their seats if expelled from their political parties. The suspension of three judges delayed the case by over two months. Only four justices remained on the Supreme Court bench during that period, despite the requirement under the Courts Act for a minimum of five judges to hear constitutional matters.