Motion submitted to parliament seeking inquiry into JSC's removal of Supreme Court judges

A motion has been submitted to the People's Majlis calling for an examination of the Judicial Service Commission's (JSC) decision to remove two Supreme Court judges from office, following the Prosecutor General's Office's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges against them.

The motion, submitted by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for North Galolhu Mohamed Ibrahim (Kudoo), seeks parliamentary consideration of whether the JSC should be held accountable for its actions in the dismissal of former Supreme Court justices Mahaz Ali Zahir and Dr Azmiralda Zahir.

The two judges were dismissed in May 2025 following a recommendation by the JSC, with 68 members of parliament voting in favour of their removal.

The dismissals followed the suspension of three Supreme Court judges in February 2025 over allegations of improper influence.

The judges suspended were Husnu Al Suood, Mahaz Ali Zahir and Dr Azmiralda Zahir.

Husnu Al Suood subsequently resigned, alleging government interference in the judiciary while the JSC investigation was under way.

Mahaz and Azmiralda were removed from office after parliament approved the JSC's recommendation.

At the time, Parliament's Counsel General Fathimath Filza advised the Judiciary Committee that the JSC's decision was contrary to the law.

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) later conducted a criminal investigation into the allegations and forwarded the case for prosecution.

However, the Prosecutor General's Office decided in September 2026 that the evidence was insufficient to bring criminal charges. The case has since been closed.

Motion questions basis for dismissals

In his motion, Mohamed Ibrahim argued that the decision not to prosecute demonstrated that the two judges had been removed on the basis of allegations that lacked sufficient evidence.

The motion states that judges cannot be removed from office unless they have failed to comply with the standards of conduct and procedures governing the judiciary.

It argues that the JSC should be held accountable for recommending the removal of Supreme Court judges without adequate grounds to establish criminal wrongdoing.

The motion also refers to parliament's constitutional responsibility to oversee the exercise of executive authority and ensure accountability.

According to the motion, the JSC recommended the removal of judges from the country's highest court based solely on allegations, despite the absence of sufficient grounds to establish that a criminal offence had been committed.

It calls on parliament to consider directing its Judiciary Committee to examine the JSC's handling of the case and determine what action should be taken.

Dismissals followed constitutional dispute

The suspension and subsequent dismissal of the judges took place while the Supreme Court was preparing to hear a case concerning a constitutional amendment introduced by the government.

The amendment provided that members of parliament would lose their seats if they changed political parties or were expelled from their parties.

The Supreme Court was considering an application for an interim order to suspend the implementation of the amendment, with the hearing approaching when the JSC suspended the three judges.

Mahaz and Azmiralda, who were members of the bench hearing the constitutional challenge, subsequently alleged that the JSC's actions were intended to influence the proceedings.

Following changes to the Supreme Court bench, the court ruled in favour of the government in the constitutional case.

The latest motion seeks parliamentary scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the judges' removal and the JSC's role in the process, following the decision not to pursue criminal charges.