High Court rejects case to halt referendum
Supreme Court has ruled that the wording of the referendum question is valid, rejecting claims that it should state the reduction in the current term.
The High Court has declined to accept a case filed to halt the enforcement of a public referendum on holding presidential and parliamentary elections on the same day.
The case was submitted by lawyer Mariyam Shunana, who argued that the decree issued by President Mohamed Muizzu to conduct the referendum is unconstitutional.
In its decision, the High Court Registrar Mariyam Hoorshida stated that the court’s jurisdiction over constitutional matters is limited to challenges against laws, provisions of laws, regulations or provisions of regulations.
She noted that the presidential decree to hold a referendum does not fall within these categories.
The case also argued that the period of 47 days between the announcement of the referendum and the voting date is not sufficient for public awareness and election preparations.
It further stated that access to key information, including sample ballot papers, the relevant bill and the presidential decree, has not been provided in a centralised format.
The court’s decision follows other legal challenges related to the referendum.
The Civil Court previously declined to accept a case filed by lawyers representing the Maldivian Democratic Party seeking to annul the presidential decree.
The Supreme Court also dismissed a case filed by former Member of Parliament Ali Hussain challenging the constitutional amendment bill on the basis of the time frame for presidential assent.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the referendum question is valid, rejecting claims that it should state the reduction in the current parliamentary term.
