Petitioner Seeks Order Protecting Supreme Court Justices Amid Ongoing Constitutional Challenge

The petitioner in a Supreme Court case challenging a constitutional amendment has sought an interim order restraining state authorities from taking any action against Supreme Court justices while the matter remains before the court.

The request was made during ongoing proceedings concerning a 2024 constitutional amendment that provides for Members of Parliament to lose their seats if they switch political parties. The case was filed by lawyer Ali Hussain, who is also seeking a stay on the implementation of the amendment until a final ruling is issued.

Representing the petitioner, lawyer Aishath Sheena Mohamed told the court that an order was necessary to safeguard the judiciary from potential external pressure during the hearing of what she described as a politically sensitive case. She argued that previous concerns about interference had been followed by events involving members of the judiciary, including resignations, dismissals, and retirement from the bench.

Ali Hussain v. State [Attorney General’s Office] [2024/SC-C/02] Hearing 03 https://t.co/GsGbkGibZX

— Supreme Court of the Maldives (@SCMaldives) April 14, 2026

Sheena said the risk of pressure on judges remained and therefore renewed the request for interim relief to prevent any investigation or action relating to Supreme Court justices while the constitutional matter is being deliberated.

The case has drawn attention due to developments within the judiciary over the past year, during which several changes occurred to the composition of the Supreme Court bench. The hearing is the first in the matter after a prolonged pause.

While this case regarding the 2024 constitutional amendment was pending, several issues involving Supreme Court judges were investigated. Following these events, Judge Husnu Al Suood resigned, while the Parliament dismissed Judge Mahaz Ali Zahir and Judge Azmiralda Zahir. Shortly thereafter, Chief Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan retired. This is the first hearing held after a hiatus of more than a year.

The state opposed the interim requests and argued that the anti-defection amendment is consistent with democratic practice and has been upheld in comparable jurisdictions. It also said restrictions on party-switching are supported by public sentiment and that similar laws have previously been validated by the Supreme Court.

On the question of judicial review, the state argued that constitutional amendments fall within the legislative authority of Parliament and questioned whether the Constitution provides the court with the power to strike down such amendments. It further submitted that courts in many jurisdictions do not examine constitutional amendments against the Constitution itself.

State representatives also maintained that MPs would only lose their seats if removed from their parties in accordance with the law, and that any disputes over such removals could be subject to judicial review. They argued the amendment does not undermine parliamentary independence.

In its preliminary objection, the state urged the court to dismiss the case, contending that a constitutional amendment cannot be challenged on the basis that it violates the Constitution.

The petitioner, however, argued that Parliament’s amendment powers are not unlimited and must conform to fundamental constitutional principles, including the principle that sovereign power rests with the people. She also raised concerns over the fairness of internal party processes used to trigger seat loss under the amendment.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), which intervened in the case, supported the challenge, arguing that the amendment undermines the separation of powers and could expose MPs to undue political influence.

The matter is being heard by a seven-member bench of the Supreme Court.