News Desk
MALE’, Maldives — Theemuge, the unassuming building that houses the Maldives’ Supreme Court, has only one hall for hearings, a modest space where the weight of justice is meant to settle. On Wednesday morning, the room buzzed with quiet preparation. The floors had been swept and mopped, the tables dusted down, and microphones tested with a faint hum.
Court staff moved briskly, arranging water bottles in neat rows and pouring coffee for the justices, in the meeting room, as they shuffled in, robes draped over their shoulders, readying themselves for the day’s proceedings. Then, just as the session was set to begin, a court officer stepped forward, clearing his throat to deliver a bombshell that had already begun rippling through the media: three of the court’s justices had been suspended.
The news landed like a thunderclap in the small, humid waiting room, where the stakes were already high. Moments earlier, the scene could have been one of routine—lawyers adjusting their notes, prosecutors exchanging low murmurs, and onlookers shifting in their seats. Phones were ordered off, the air thick with anticipation. But no one saw this coming.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) had moved swiftly, suspending Justices Husnu Sood, Mahaz Ali Zahir, and Dr. Azmiralda Zahir, citing an ongoing investigation by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).
Details were scarce; the JSC’s press release was vague, and ACC unavailable. The hearing scheduled for the morning—on a petition challenging a controversial constitutional amendment—never got off the ground. Leaving only questions in its wake.
This wasn’t just a random twist. Hours earlier, the Maldives’ Parliament, controlled by the ruling People’s National Congress (PNC), had muscled through a bill to shrink the Supreme Court from seven justices to five. It passed with 68 PNC members steamrolling over opposition members from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and one independent.
The timing felt too neat, too choreographed. Just 48 hours after its first reading, the bill was law, and now three justices were off the bench.
The day’s drama had roots in a broader fight. The Supreme Court was already wrestling with a petition from Ali Hussain, a former MP and lawyer, who’d asked for an interim order to block state agencies from ousting lawmakers until the court could rule on a constitutional tweak—one that lets political parties disqualify MPs who defy the party line.
That hearing, set for 11 a.m., was scrapped after the suspensions. Meanwhile, the freshly passed bill didn’t just trim the court’s size; it laid out a process to declare two justices “unfit” for office—no explanation required, no chance for them to defend themselves. To many, it looked like a playbook borrowed from autocrats’ past: kneecap the court, then rewrite the rules.
