Bar Council Calls on Parliament to Ensure Transparency in Supreme Court Judges’ Case
Supreme Court Judges Azmiralda Zahir (L) and Mahaz Ali Zahir (R). | Photo credit: Supreme Court of Maldives
The Bar Council of Maldives has called on the Parliament’s Judiciary Committee to open its proceedings to the public in the case involving Supreme Court Justices Dr. Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir.
The Council has also formally requested a meeting with the Committee to express its concerns and ensure the protection of judicial independence and due process.
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
This follows a formal submission by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to the People’s Majlis, recommending the removal of the two Supreme Court justices under Article 154(h) of the Constitution. The article allows for the dismissal of a judge if there is credible evidence of misconduct involving dishonesty or abuse of power that undermines their ability to perform judicial functions impartially and independently.
In its press release, the Bar Council emphasized the importance of upholding constitutional safeguards, stating that justice must not only be done but also seen to be done. It warned that the confidentiality of the investigation, while important, should not be used to shield the process from public scrutiny or accountability.
“The integrity of the judiciary must be preserved, and that includes ensuring that proceedings affecting judges are conducted with fairness, transparency, and respect for the rule of law,” the Council stated. “We call upon the Judiciary Committee to make its sessions on this matter open to the public and to meet with us to discuss our concerns.”
Background of the Case
The case centers around allegations of serious judicial misconduct involving Justices Dr. Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir. While official details remain limited due to the confidential nature of the investigation, sources indicate that the JSC reviewed claims related to abuse of judicial authority and ethical violations. The Commission concluded that the judges may no longer be fit to serve on the bench, leading to its formal submission to Parliament.
The JSC’s recommendation, made in accordance with Regulation Number: 2008/10 (Judicial Service Commission Regulation), includes factual and legal reasoning for removal and has prompted a motion in the Parliament.
The allegations involve efforts to influence the outcome of a criminal case concerning Judge Azmiralda’s husband, Dr. Ismail Latheef, who was arrested during a police raid on a spa suspected of illegal operations. Both judges, along with then-Justice Husnu Al Suood—who later resigned—were accused of using their judicial authority to intervene in the case.
Their suspension last year coincided with the Supreme Court’s handling of a politically significant case challenging a recent constitutional amendment banning floor-crossing by Members of Parliament. The case, submitted by former Kendhoo MP and lawyer Ali Hussain, argues that the amendment—pushed through by the ruling coalition—violated democratic norms and constitutional procedures. The suspension of judges involved in the case halted its progress and raised concerns about interference in judicial proceedings.
Meanwhile, the Bar Council noted that it had received reports of procedural concerns submitted by the judges’ legal teams, which are currently under review by the JSC. The Council stated that the inclusion of legal counsel and the opportunity for defense are essential components of a fair process.
Bar Council Pushes for Due Process
In its statement, the Bar Council reiterated its commitment to ensuring that any resolution on the matter adheres to lawful procedures and respects the constitutional rights of all individuals involved. It warned against any attempt to rush or politicize the process, stating that such actions could have lasting implications for judicial independence in the Maldives.
The Council said it would continue to monitor the case closely and engage with relevant state institutions to advocate for a fair and transparent process. The request to open Judiciary Committee meetings is seen as a crucial step toward reinforcing public confidence in the accountability mechanisms of the judiciary.
The outcome of the parliamentary deliberations could mark a significant moment in the Maldives’ judicial history, as it involves the potential removal of sitting Supreme Court justices through constitutional means—a rare and highly consequential process.
