Supreme Court concludes hearings on amendment on MPs’ seats

The Supreme Court on Tuesday concluded hearings on a constitutional amendment concerning the removal of Members of Parliament upon dismissal from their political party.

The court ended the session without issuing a decision on a request for interim orders to suspend the implementation of the amendment.

The case was filed by former Member of Parliament Ali Hussain, who seeks to invalidate the amendment on the basis that it breaches the structure of the Constitution. He requested an order to stay the implementation of the amendment until a final ruling and a separate order to prevent action against sitting judges until the case is concluded.

During the hearing, parties presented arguments on the case. The afternoon session focused on the request for interim orders and the State’s response, followed by questions from the bench and final submissions from all parties, including the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), which intervened in the case.

Chief Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan, presiding over the full bench, said a written decision on the interim orders would be issued at a later date. He said further hearings would be held only if required, and otherwise the next stage would be the final judgment.

A court official said no interim order would be issued on Tuesday and that the judges would deliberate and announce a decision in the coming days.

The request to prevent action against judges follows an incident on February 26, 2025, when three judges were suspended before a scheduled hearing on interim orders. Since then, Justice Husnu Al Suood has resigned, while Justice Mahaz Ali Zahir and Dr Azmiralda Zahir were removed. The Chief Justice at the time also retired. Hearings resumed after the bench was reconstituted.

State attorneys argued that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has constitutional authority to take action against judges and that interim orders should not restrict this power.

Counsel for Ali Hussain, Mahfooze Saeed, said that while the circumstances of the previous year had passed, similar situations could arise. He said courts have the authority to issue orders necessary to ensure judicial independence.

“An order required for the security and independence of the judiciary must be permissible,” he said.