State tells court president has authority over referendum question
She said the Constitution provides discretion to the President, with procedures governed by the Referendum Act.
Top Stories
The State has told the Supreme Court that the Constitution does not prescribe the wording of questions in a public referendum and that this authority rests with the President.
The submission was made during hearings in a case filed by Ahmed Aik Easa and Ibrahim Shiyam, members of the Maldivian Democratic Party’s legal team. The petition challenges the constitutionality of the question proposed for a referendum on the 8th Amendment to the Constitution.
The amendment relates to holding presidential and parliamentary elections simultaneously and determining the term of the People’s Majlis.
The proposed referendum question asks whether voters support the President ratifying the bill passed by the People’s Majlis on the amendment.
The petitioners argue that as the amendment affects the term of the Majlis, the question should directly ask whether the public agrees to reduce the current term.
During the hearing, State Counsel Hawwa Sana, representing the Attorney General’s Office, said Article 262 of the Constitution requires certain amendments to be approved through a public referendum before ratification by the President. She said the article does not specify how the question should be framed.
“Article 262 does not specify the wording or design of the question,” Sana told the court.
She said the Constitution provides discretion to the President, with procedures governed by the Referendum Act. Under the Act, a referendum is initiated through a Presidential Decree, and the wording of the question is determined by the President.
The State submitted that a violation of Article 262 would occur only if a referendum is not held when required or if the President acts against the outcome of the vote.
Representing the petitioners, lawyer Ali Hussain argued that the President’s discretion must be exercised in line with the purpose of the Constitution. He said the amendment would reduce the term of the current Majlis and that this should be reflected in the referendum question.
“The public decided in 2024 that the 20th People’s Majlis would serve a five-year term. If there is an attempt to reduce that term, the question must reflect that,” he said.
Chief Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan stated that further hearings will be scheduled only if additional clarification is required. Otherwise, the court will proceed to deliver its judgment.
