News Desk
MALE’, Maldives — A ruling party lawmaker has ignited a political firestorm by introducing a bill to reduce the number of Supreme Court justices, a move critics say is an attempt to tighten control over the judiciary. The proposal, put forth by Abdul Sattar Mohammed, a member of Parliament from the ruling Progressive National Congress (PNC), seeks to slash the court’s bench from seven justices to five.
Sattar defended the measure as a step toward judicial reform, arguing that it aligns with “the hopes of the people” by reverting to the original composition of the Supreme Court. The bill, slated for debate in Parliament on Monday, would grant the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) five days to select two judges for removal—without adhering to existing legal procedures, according to the proposal.
The timing of the legislation has raised eyebrows. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a constitutional amendment that could expel lawmakers from Parliament if they are ousted from their political parties—an outcome that could reshape the legislative balance.
Critics are calling the bill an outright attack on judicial independence. Opposition Maldives Democratic Party (MDP) chairperson Fayyaz Ismail condemned the move, calling it “a major step backwards” for democracy. “After filing the constitutional case in the Supreme Court, the government is now trying to intimidate and reduce the number of judges,” Fayyaz said. He warned that the bill signals an attack not just on the Supreme Court, but on the entire judiciary.
The Democrats, in a strongly worded statement, accused the government of attempting to ‘court-pack’ to secure favorable rulings. “Democracy and the people of Maldives will not benefit unless the state is allowed to operate smoothly and in accordance with democratic rules without any power being encroached upon or unduly influenced by another,” the statement read.
The government, however, has dismissed allegations of judicial interference. Attorney General Ahmed Usham sought to allay concerns on Saturday, insisting that the government has no intention of manipulating the court. “We will not try to change the composition of the Supreme Court bench by amending a law or otherwise,” Usham told reporters, branding the accusations as baseless. He emphasized that the judiciary has functioned independently under the current administration, noting that no judge has faced government action in over a year.
But not everyone is convinced. Former President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih warned that the bill could mark the beginning of an authoritarian shift. “The next step this government will take is to change the bench of the Supreme Court,” Solih declared at a rally. “It will not stop without doing that. Then the true character of this government will be seen.”
The Supreme Court’s current seven-member bench—Chief Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan, Justices Husnu Sood, Azmiralda Zahir, Mahaz Ali Zahir, Aisha Shujoon Mohammed, Dr. Mohammed Ibrahim, and Ali Rasheed—was appointed in 2019 during Solih’s administration. That shake-up, driven by MDP’s dominance in Parliament and the JSC, replaced the entire previous bench, including the chief justice. At the time, Solih’s government faced accusations of heavy-handed interference in judicial affairs, and intimidation of judges, with critics pointing to the role of MP Hisaan Hussain, who chaired the JSC while serving as a lawmaker.
The bill has also reopened old political wounds. In a heated exchange, ruling party MP Ibrahim Shujau accused MDP of having a history of judicial meddling. “Do you not remember that your party set up street courts, meddled in the judiciary, and changed the bench of the Supreme Court and High Court to suit your agenda?” Shujau said, taking direct aim at Fayyaz.
During MDP’s first stint in power under President Nasheed, then-MP Reeko Moosa set up a street court to challenge the Supreme Court, which was critical of Nasheed’s government’s extrajudicial measures.
Shujau went further, arguing that judicial reform should not be a concern for MDP. “The party has a notorious history of undermining the judiciary, kidnapping judges, and removing them from office on the grounds of misconduct,” he said.
During President Nasheed’s tenure, a judge was kidnapped from his home and held in a military facility. Likewise, during President Yameen’s (PPM) rule, justices were removed from court premises and arrested after declaring a state of emergency.
For now, the government’s intentions remain murky. With Parliament set to debate the bill, all eyes are on whether the ruling party will push ahead with a measure that could shift the balance of power in the judiciary—or whether growing criticism will force a retreat. The tug-of-war over the courts continues, with both sides accusing the other of wielding judicial reform as a political weapon.
