Amendments to Judicature Act Unconstitutional, Says Bar Council
Photo: Bar Council
The Bar Council of the Maldives has called the amendments to the Judicature Act unconstitutional and urged President Dr Mohamed Muizzu to send the bill back to parliament instead of ratifying it.
In a press release issued yesterday, the Bar Council described the amendments passed by parliament the same day as unconstitutional and called on the president to return the bill to parliament for further discussion before enacting it. Abdul Sattar Mohamed, the People’s National Congress (PNC) member and parliamentarian for Holhudhoo, proposed the amendments, which passed with 68 votes, all cast by PNC members. The Holhudhoo MP submitted the amendments independently on February 24.
advertisement
The Bar Council stated that it had raised its concerns with the President, Parliament, the Parliamentary Judicial Committee, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), and the Attorney General’s Office. It argued that the amendments do not clarify the reasons or objectives behind the proposed changes.
The Council also emphasised that the constitution clearly outlines the processes for appointing and dismissing the Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges, stipulating specific criteria for both. It noted that Supreme Court judges should only be dismissed if they violate disciplinary standards and that judges typically retire upon reaching the age of 70. Judges can only be removed by a parliamentary motion if they are deemed unqualified or guilty of misconduct, the Bar Council asserted.
“… the Council believes that in the event of a law being amended in a matter related to one power of the state, it is to be made clear to the public as to why the amendments are being made and for what purpose, in a transparent and democratic society,” the press release said in Dhivehi.
The Bar Council also highlighted the constitutional violations in the amendments, referencing Articles 148, 149, and 154, and criticised the bill for allowing private citizens and state officials to interfere in the functioning of judges.
One provision in particular — which requires two of the seven Supreme Court judges to inform parliament within five days if they were found unqualified — was described by the Bar Council as contrary to the Constitution and the Judicial Service Act.
Given these concerns, the Bar Council has called on President Muizzu to reject the bill and send it back to Parliament for further deliberation.
The bill was introduced while the Supreme Court was hearing a petition challenging the constitutional amendment that disqualifies legislators who defect or are expelled from their political party. The hearing, scheduled for yesterday, coincided with the suspension of three Supreme Court justices following a letter from the Judicial Service Commission informing them that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) was investigating the judges for alleged criminal misconduct.
