Supreme Court rejects case against 500-hectare Ras Malé land agreement

The Supreme Court registrar has declined to register a constitutional case challenging the government's agreement to allocate 500 hectares of land in Ras Malé to UAE-based Eagle Hills, ruling that the matter cannot be filed directly with the country's highest court.

The case was submitted by lawyer and former Kendhoo MP Ali Hussain, who sought to halt the implementation of the agreement on the grounds that it violated the Constitution.

The registrar decided on Sunday not to accept the case, stating that it did not fall within the categories of cases that could be submitted directly to the Supreme Court as a court of first instance.

Under Article 11 of the Courts Act, matters that may be filed directly with the Supreme Court include cases involving a potential constitutional vacuum or breakdown of the constitutional system, disputes between state institutions concerning constitutional interpretation, and constitutional matters involving the public interest.

The registrar's decision can be challenged before a panel of Supreme Court justices within 14 days.

In a statement issued after filing the case, Ali Hussain said his principal concern was that the agreement would grant Eagle Hills ownership-related interests in 500 hectares of land without requiring the company to pay an acquisition cost or rent.

He argued that Article 250 of the Constitution requires state property and assets to be transferred, sold, leased or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the law.

The petition maintained that no legal framework in the Maldives authorises the allocation of state land to foreign parties under a single 99-year lease arrangement of the kind proposed.

It further argued that granting leasehold rights to foreign parties without the necessary legal authority would directly contravene Article 250.

Ali Hussain also questioned provisions of the agreement that he said would allow Eagle Hills to create lasting rights over the land in favour of third parties.

In his submission, Ali Hussain requested a declaration that the agreement with Eagle Hills violated Articles 250 and 251 of the Constitution and was therefore invalid.

He also sought an interim order suspending implementation of the agreement until the Supreme Court reached a final decision.

The requested interim order was intended to prevent the creation or transfer of rights and interests in the land to third parties while the constitutional challenge was pending.

The registrar's decision means the case has not proceeded to a substantive hearing before the Supreme Court. The court has therefore not ruled on the constitutionality of the agreement.

The government has signed a commercial terms agreement with Eagle Hills for a proposed USD 20 billion investment in the Ras Malé development.

Under the proposal, Eagle Hills plans to develop waterfront and marina areas within the project's urban district.

The company has outlined plans for branded residences, resorts, a marina, restaurants, a waterfront promenade, and leisure and wellness facilities.

The development is expected to be implemented in phases.

According to projections associated with the project, the development could attract more than USD 30 billion in foreign investment, including USD 18 billion in net investment.

Eagle Hills has also projected that the development could create approximately 54,000 jobs and attract more than one million visitors annually.

The company estimates that tourism activities within the development could generate USD 2 billion in annual revenue.

These figures remain projections associated with the proposed development rather than realised investment or revenue.

The agreement has drawn criticism from opposition political figures, including former presidents Mohamed Nasheed, Ibrahim Mohamed Solih and Abdulla Yameen, who have raised concerns about the proposed land arrangements.

The Supreme Court registrar's decision leaves the constitutional questions raised by Ali Hussain unresolved, although he retains the option of seeking a review of the registration decision within the prescribed 14-day period.