Anti-defection case stalled for one year; ACC yet to conclude probe into former justices

Today marks one year since the Supreme Court bench was dismantled, effectively stalling the case challenging the controversial amendments to the constitution to write anti-defection clauses into the Maldivian constitution which stipulates lawmakers will loose their seats if they switch political parties. Meanwhile, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has yet to conclude the investigation into three former justices accused of misconduct.

On February 26, 2025, then-Supreme Court justices Dr. Azmiralda Zahir, Mahaz Ali Zahir and Husnu Al-Suood were suspended by JSC, citing an ongoing criminal investigation against them by ACC. Suood resigned from the top court in protest of JSC’s decision, and the commission later opened misconduct cases against Azmiralda and Mahaz, accusing them of conspiring to influence the Criminal Court. Azmiralda and Mahaz - both of whom claim that the allegations against them are baseless and that the investigations by the JSC were tainted by the denial of due process to them - were dismissed by the Parliament with majority votes of 68-11 on May 14.

One year later, the ACC investigation against the former justices remain incomplete.

Notably, the suspension of the justices came as they heard a case challenging the controversial move by the ruling PNC to write anti-defection clauses into the Maldivian constitution filed by the opposition. The case filed by former Kendhoo MP Ali Hussain, an attorney-at-law, seeking to nullify the anti-defection clauses, remains stymied in the top court to date.

Although the Supreme Court has not issued any formal updates on this issue, the Chief Justice has recently formed a task force aimed at fast-tracking cases that have been pending for more than a year. Reports indicate that the anti-defection case is one of the matters being given priority by this task force.

Many, including Suood and Azmiralda, have claimed that their suspension was a calculated move by the government to pressure and intimidate judges, with the aim of swaying the judiciary and preventing the court from delivering a ruling on the constitutional issue.

Notwithstanding objections voiced by numerous local and international organizations, as well as legal experts, the Parliament’s Judiciary Committee moved forward with its decision to dismiss Azmiralda and Mahaz. The committee also declined to provide them with a sufficient opportunity to address the allegations, despite serious concerns regarding due process. Acting on the committee’s recommendation, Parliament subsequently removed both justices from the bench.

Since the ouster of three justices,  then-Chief Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan also vacated his position, retiring with honors on July 21. Having served the judiciary for nine years, seven months, and twelve days—both as Chief Justice and a Supreme Court judge—his retirement was met with criticism due to his perceived silence regarding the suspension of his colleagues.

In a notable turn of events, it was revealed that the JSC only forwarded the investigative statements of the justices to the ACC six months after their removal from office. The ACC itself waited six months before requesting these statements from the JSC.

Sources indicate that this request led to internal disagreements within the JSC. Some members questioned the legal necessity of providing statements to the ACC long after the justices had been dismissed, especially since the initial removal was purportedly based on information provided by the ACC itself.

Following the ouster of three justices, then–Chief Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan stepped down from his post and retired with honors on July 21. After serving the judiciary for nine years, seven months, and twelve days—as both Chief Justice and a Supreme Court judge—his departure drew criticism, largely due to what many perceived as his silence over the suspension of his fellow justices.

In a significant development, it later emerged that the JSC transmitted the justices’ investigative statements to the ACC only six months after their dismissal. The ACC itself had delayed for six months before requesting those documents from the JSC.

According to sources, this request sparked internal divisions within the JSC. Some members reportedly questioned the legal basis for submitting the statements to the ACC long after the justices had been removed, particularly given that the initial dismissals were said to have relied on information previously supplied by the ACC.