Supreme Court hears challenge to upcoming referendum; prepares to issue judgement

The Supreme Court has wrapped up hearings in a constitutional case that seeks to halt the upcoming referendum on synchronizing the presidential and parliamentary elections, announcing on Thursday that the court will be delivering its judgement next.

Under the current system, voters go to polls twice within around six months every five years, electing the president in September and members of Parliament in April.

On February 10, the ruling People’s National Congress (PNC) used its supermajority in the Parliament to pass constitutional amendments proposed by the government to hold future presidential elections and parliamentary elections on the same day.

These constitutional amendments propose merging the two elections, and bringing forward the start of the parliamentary term from May to December 1 to get this done.

This change will shorten the five-year term of the current parliamentary assembly, sworn in on May 28, 2024, by around six months.

The first combined poll would take place in 2028.

On February 16, President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu decreed that a public referendum on this – as required by law on such matters – would be held on April 4 – the same day as the local council elections.

The Supreme Court received two constitutional cases last week, challenging the referendum.

One of the cases was rejected, while the other, filed by attorneys Ibrahim Shiyam and Aik Ahmed Easa against the President’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office, and the Elections Commission, was heard by the court on Thursday.

They argue that the question in the decree fails to meet legal criteria set in the Constitution, and asks the court to halt the referendum.

President Muizzu decreed for the following question to be asked of the public:

“Do you approve the ratification of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides for the Presidential and People’s Majlis elections to be held concurrently and for a change to the term of the People’s Majlis?”

At Thursday’s hearing, the petitioners said that the referendum is required because the Constitution calls for one when making decisions regarding making changes to the term of the current parliamentary assembly.

They argued that the people should therefore be asked during the referendum, whether they agree with changing the term.

They also argued that things that lie within the President’s discretionary powers must also be carried out in line with the spirit of the Constitution.

The state responded that the Constitution does not state how a question being asked in a referendum should be phrased, and that is left to the discretion of the President.

The state argued that the procedures for this is set down in the Referendum Act, which only states that the President must have the question framed in his decree.

The case is being heard by a five-member bench composed of Chief Justice Abdul Ghani Mohamed, Justice Ali Rasheed Hussain, Justice Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim, Justice Hussain Shaheed, and Justice Abdulla Hameed.

Concluding the hearing, Abdul Ghani announced that the court will be delivering its judgement next, if no additional clarification is required during deliberations.

However, he did not announce a date for the judgement hearing.