MP Sinaan's lawyer claims unawareness caused debt payment delay

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case concerning whether Hithadhoo North MP Mohamed Sinaan’s repayment of a court-ordered debt was made in accordance with the judgment timeline.

Sinaan and three others were ordered on 16 October last year to pay MVR 2.5 million to the Maldives Islamic Bank (MIB), as part of an outstanding loan of MVR 3.8 million. The judgment, delivered by the Hithadhoo Magistrate Court in Sinaan’s absence, stipulated that the debt should be settled through monthly payments over a six-month period.

The case was filed in the Supreme Court on 13 February this year. According to Sinaan’s lawyer, Moosa Ali, the full debt was paid off on that same day. He argued that the MP had not been aware of the ruling until after an enforcement case was registered in court.

“The member was unaware of the judgment until the enforcement case was filed and registered,” Moosa told the court. He added that Sinaan had not received the verdict at the time it was issued, despite legal representation being appointed.

The enforcement case was reportedly filed on 16 December, two months before the debt was fully paid. The complainant had raised questions about the delay in payment during that period.

The Supreme Court bench instructed Sinaan’s lawyer to submit two key pieces of information by Thursday: the exact date Sinaan became aware of the debt judgment and documentation, including bank statements, showing how the debt was paid.

The central legal issue under discussion is whether Sinaan fulfilled the debt repayment in line with the court’s instructions. Article 73(c)(1) of the Maldivian Constitution requires members of Parliament to resign if they fail to pay a court-ordered debt as directed.

Sinaan’s lawyer maintained that the original judgment provided a six-month window to complete repayment and noted that the debt was settled two months before the deadline.

He also stated that the magistrate court’s order lacked final authority and pointed out that in all previous cases involving the loss of a parliamentary seat due to unpaid debts, the judgments had not been complied with by the deadline. In Sinaan’s case, however, the full amount was paid within the time frame.

Lawyer Ali Hussain, representing petitioner Ghalib Saleem and a former MP himself, argued that the judgment had clearly instructed the repayment of no less than the minimum amount due each month. He claimed that Sinaan failed to adhere to this condition.

“The reason the enforcement case was filed is that the debt was not being paid in accordance with the judgment,” Ali said. “The payments were expected monthly. Payment should have been made at the end of the first month, and again at the end of the second month.”