Tue, 14 Apr 2026
|DHIVEHI
No grounds for interim order in constitutional amendment case: State
14 Apr 2026
|
Supreme Court of Maldives --- Photo: Maldives Independent
Lawyers representing the State have asserted at the Supreme Court of the Maldives that the petitioners have failed to provide a valid legal basis for issuing a temporary order to suspend a constitutional amendment concerning parliamentary seats.
The amendment, proposed by the 20th Parliament, seeks to ensure that Members of Parliament who switch political parties lose their seats. The bill outlines four changes, including two key new conditions under which MPs may forfeit their seats. These include instances where a member elected to Parliament changes party affiliation during their term, is expelled from their party, or where an independent member subsequently joins a political party.
The case challenging the amendment was filed by lawyer and former Kendhoo MP Ali Hussain, who is seeking a ruling that the amendment is unconstitutional.
During proceedings, State lawyers argued that interim orders can only be granted if three specific conditions are met. Firstly, the matter must raise a substantive constitutional issue warranting judicial review. However, the State contended that the present case does not meet this threshold and should not be treated as a constitutional dispute.
Secondly, it must be demonstrated that irreparable harm would occur before a final judgment is delivered. The State noted that while such a claim had been made, no clear explanation or evidence had been provided to support it.
Thirdly, the issuance of an interim order must be shown to be in the public interest. In response to arguments from the petitioners, the State said no adequate justification had been offered, nor had it been clarified which law would be violated if the order were not granted.
Based on these arguments, the State maintained that there are no legal grounds to suspend the implementation of the amendment pending the Court’s decision. It also reiterated its position, previously stated in Parliament, that the amendment is constitutionally valid.
The case is being heard by a full bench of seven justices of the Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice Uz Abdul Ghanee Mohamed. The bench includes Justices Uza Aisha Shujune Muhammad, Dr Mohamed Ibrahim, Uz Ali Rasheed Hussain, Uz Hussain Shaheed, Uz Abdulla Hameed, and Uz Mohamed Saleem.