News Desk
The Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional amendment requiring MPs to lose their seats if they leave or are expelled from the party under which they were elected is valid and applies to the current Majlis.
The judgment was delivered today by Chief Justice Abdul Ghani Mohamed in the petition filed by former Kendhoo MP Ali Hussain, who sought to annul the Sixth Amendment and block its enforcement on sitting members. The case was heard by a full bench of seven judges.
The Chief Justice said Parliament has the constitutional authority to amend the Constitution and that adopting an anti defection rule is consistent with practices in independent democracies. He noted that presidential systems such as Nigeria and Kenya maintain strict bans on crossing the floor, and that mixed systems also enforce similar rules.
He said such provisions are introduced to curb political profiteering and protect the integrity of the electoral mandate. “The amendment to Article 73 should be seen as a framework to ensure that the essence of the mandate entrusted by the people is not lost,” he said.
Ali Hussain argued that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution and should not apply to the current Majlis. His lawyer also asked the court to rule that the amendment could not be enforced retroactively.
The Chief Justice rejected those claims. He said the Constitution does not prevent the court from hearing challenges to constitutional amendments, but the petitioner had not shown any legal basis to invalidate the rule. He added that the amendment was passed with a high majority and does not undermine democratic governance, the sovereignty of the people or the powers of the Majlis.
He also referred to the court’s earlier decision upholding a similar anti defection law, saying there was no reason to depart from established precedent.
In his judgment, the Chief Justice explained the origins of the basic structure doctrine developed by the Supreme Court of India. He said the doctrine emerged from constitutional disputes in India, where the court held that Parliament could amend the Constitution but could not alter its core features.
He said the Maldivian Constitution also contains a basic framework and listed several characteristics that form its foundation. However, he said the historical context of the Maldivian Constitution is different from India’s, and there is no basis for the Supreme Court to create a similar judicial doctrine. He added that India’s rule was shaped by its own constitutional struggles, while the Maldives has a detailed amendment process that already provides safeguards.
Justice Aisha Shujoon Mohamed dissented. She said MPs are elected primarily as individuals and that the interests of constituents should come first. She argued that party policies may restrict members in ways that conflict with the public interest and that the amendment should therefore be struck down.
The majority ruling confirms that the anti defection amendment stands and will apply to all sitting MPs once ratified.
