News Desk
Former Prosecutor General Muhuthaz Muhsin has sharpened the ongoing debate over the Supreme Court’s handling of the constitutional amendment dispute, arguing that former Justice Husnu Al Suood is criticising a procedural model he once endorsed from the bench.
Responding to Suood’s public remarks, Muhsin said the practice of issuing decisions through the Registrar without a hearing was not an innovation of the present Court but a method strengthened during Suood’s own tenure. He noted that the Registrar’s authority had been expanded with the approval of the justices serving at the time, including Suood.
“Ustaz Suood is among the justices who have declared such decisions of the Registrar to be correct,” Muhsin wrote, casting Suood’s present objections as a departure from his earlier judicial reasoning.
Suood had argued that the constitutional amendment bill — which seeks to shorten the parliamentary term and align parliamentary and presidential elections — would be invalid if the Court failed to decide within fifteen days on the referendum question. He criticised the Court for issuing its ruling without a hearing and questioned whether a judgment could stand without hearing from the petitioner.
Muhsin’s intervention appears aimed at situating the debate within a longer institutional history, suggesting that Suood’s critique overlooks the procedural architecture he helped shape.
The Supreme Court has since rejected the petition filed by lawyer and former MP Ali Hussain, who sought to invalidate the amendment bill. The Registrar’s decision stated that constitutional amendment bills requiring a public vote must follow the procedures set out in Chapter 12 of the Constitution. It also noted that the President had not refused assent to the amendment and that approval would depend on the outcome of the April 4 vote.
While Ali Hussain’s case was dismissed, the Court has accepted another petition filed by MDP lawyers Ike Ahmed Isa and Ibrahim Shiyam. They argue that the question approved for the referendum is unconstitutional and that the vote cannot proceed on that basis.
The MDP has also filed several related cases in the High Court, seeking interim orders to pause the referendum. The High Court has yet to decide whether it will accept those cases.
The issue has moved beyond procedure and into a deeper examination of constitutional method and judicial restraint, a discussion set to intensify as the country approaches the referendum in the coming days.
