News Desk
Chief Justice Abdul Ghani Mohammed has pledged a sweeping effort to clear the country’s mounting backlog of court cases, announcing that a dedicated task force will begin work immediately to address delays he described as a threat to meaningful justice.
Speaking at the launch of Judicial Year 2026, he said the judiciary could only function effectively with a strong system for monitoring progress. Without such a mechanism, he warned, reforms risked producing little more than good intentions. He acknowledged that thousands of cases have remained unresolved far longer than they should, noting that delay in justice is not getting justice.
According to figures he shared, 13,032 cases have been pending for more than a year across the courts and clearing them will be one of the judiciary’s highest priorities this year. He added that the courts expect more than 21,000 new cases to be registered by 2026, and the system must be prepared to handle both the backlog and the incoming caseload without interruption.
His pledge has been presented as a long overdue administrative clean up, yet his own figures and remarks reveal a more complicated reality. The backlog has become a political instrument in its own right used by politicians and administration to justify sweeping interventions in the judiciary and to frame the courts as chronically underperforming.
Within the judiciary, however, the picture is more nuanced. Only a small number of cases are five years old, and many of these are minor matters in which plaintiffs have stopped appearing. In some instances, cases linger because magistrates have personal or local interests at stake and prefer not to proceed. These are isolated problems that have been folded into a broader narrative of crisis.
Most Maldivian cases pass through three main courts. The Criminal Court, the Civil Court and the Addu City courts of Hithadhoo and Feydhoo handle the bulk of the country’s litigation. Their caseloads are heavy but they are not uniformly paralysed.
The backlog exists, but its scale and causes vary sharply from court to court. This is why some in the legal community view the renewed focus on backlog as a political whip. It allows senior officials, politicians, MPs and the government to call for extraordinary measures, task forces and oversight mechanisms that expand administrative control over justices and magistrates. In practice, it strengthens the hand of the Judicial Service Commission, which has long been criticised for using disciplinary powers to keep judges in line.
Critics often point to the last MDP administration, when MP Hisaan Hussain took an especially forceful approach that left the judiciary during Chief Justice Muizzu Adhunan’s tenure effectively paralysed.
The Chief Justice’s announcement of a new task force, a formula used in the past as a peer‑supervisory mechanism, reflects this shift. The group will question magistrates directly about stalled cases and work to remove obstacles preventing cases from moving forward. Where delays stem from a lack of cooperation by government agencies, he said the judiciary will intervene to resolve the issue in consultation with those bodies. He also highlighted the urgency of addressing cases involving individuals held in detention while awaiting trial, calling it a matter of social concern that demands swift resolution.
During the ceremony, the Chief Justice thanked the President for his support, framing the reform effort as part of a broader push to strengthen the justice system. He said the goal is to ensure that, by the end of 2026, the judiciary is robust and accountable, free from delayed cases and free from a backlog that undermines public confidence.
For many within the legal community, the path to that outcome lies not in heavier oversight from the Judicial Service Commission but in allowing the Chief Justice, as a constitutional functionary, to exercise the authority already vested in his office.
They argue that the JSC should enable, rather than sideline, the Chief Justice, as happened in the past when political appointees within the Commission assumed a dominant role over judicial administration. A modernised system, they say, requires smart governance tools, transparent monitoring and a judiciary led by its own head, not by a Majlis‑appointed politician acting as the de facto CJ through the JSC. Reform will only take root if the Chief Justice is placed at the centre of that process, empowered to steer the institution rather than navigate around competing political pressures.
