One year ago today, the Maldives witnessed one of the most consequential moments in its democratic journey.
On February 26, 2025, three sitting justices of the Supreme Court Azmiralda Zahir, Mahaz Ali Zahir, and Husnu Al-Suood were suspended by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), citing an ongoing investigation by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).
At the time, the Supreme Court was hearing a case challenging controversial constitutional amendments introducing anti-defection clauses amendments pushed by the ruling People’s National Congress (PNC). The case, filed by former Kendhoo MP Ali Hussain, sought to nullify provisions that strip lawmakers of their seats if they switch political parties.
That case has remained stalled ever since.
One year later, the ACC investigation that justified the suspension still remains incomplete.
This is not mere institutional delay. It raises fundamental questions about motive, timing, and democratic integrity.
A Bench Removed at a Crucial Moment
The suspension of the justices did not happen in isolation. It occurred while the court was deliberating a politically explosive constitutional challenge one that directly affected the ruling party’s grip on parliamentary control.
Justice Suood resigned in protest. Justices Azmiralda and Mahaz were later dismissed by Parliament in a 68–11 vote on May 14, despite widespread concerns about due process. Both have consistently maintained that the allegations were baseless and that the disciplinary process was fundamentally flawed.
Local and international organizations raised alarms. Legal experts warned about procedural deficiencies. Yet the Parliament’s Judiciary Committee moved forward, reportedly limiting the justices’ ability to meaningfully respond to the accusations before recommending their removal.
Then came perhaps the most troubling detail: the JSC forwarded the justices’ investigative statements to the ACC six months after their removal. The ACC itself had waited six months to request them.
If the suspensions were urgent and grounded in an active criminal investigation, why did the process move at such a glacial pace?
Justice Delayed or Justice Avoided?
The anti-defection case remains unresolved.
The constitutional amendments in question fundamentally reshape parliamentary independence. They raise serious concerns about whether Members of Parliament can act according to conscience or constituency or whether they are permanently tethered to party leadership.
When a constitutional challenge of this magnitude is stalled following the suspension of the very judges hearing it, public suspicion is inevitable.
Former Justice Suood and Justice Azmiralda have openly suggested that their suspension was calculated a move designed to pressure the judiciary and prevent a ruling on the constitutional amendments.
Whether or not one agrees with that assertion, one fact is undeniable: the outcome has been the same. The bench was dismantled. The case was stalled. The amendments remain in force.
The Dangerous Precedent
Judicial independence rarely collapses overnight. It erodes gradually through procedural shortcuts, prolonged investigations, selective urgency, and institutional silence.
The Chief Justice has since formed a task force aimed at fast-tracking cases pending for more than a year, and reports indicate that the anti-defection case is among those being prioritized. That is a welcome development.
But one year later, the deeper question remains unanswered:
Was this a corruption probe that coincidentally intersected with a constitutional case?
Or was it a constitutional case that triggered a corruption probe?
Until the ACC concludes its investigation transparently and the Supreme Court delivers a ruling on the anti-defection clauses, the shadow of February 26, 2025 will linger.
In a democracy, constitutional questions must be resolved in courtrooms — not sidelined through institutional maneuvering.
One year later, the Maldives deserves clarity.
