The Maldives Parliament’s unprecedented removal of two Supreme Court justices has triggered an urgent international response, with the United Nations delivering a stark warning about potential threats to judicial independence and democratic principles in the island nation.
In a dramatic series of events, Justices Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir were dismissed following investigations initiated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and Judicial Service Commission in February 2025. The timing of their removal coincides critically with the Supreme Court’s ongoing review of constitutional amendments restricting legislative party mobility, raising significant concerns about potential political interference.
The UN’s intervention underscores growing apprehensions about systematic attempts to undermine judicial autonomy. The dismissals occurred in a broader context of judicial upheaval, with a third justice, Al Suood, resigning in protest and Chief Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan also stepping down.
Procedural Fairness Questioned
Critical allegations suggest the justices were denied fundamental due process. Justice Azmiralda’s legal representation was reportedly barred from presenting a defense during closed-door proceedings, a move that directly challenges principles of procedural transparency and fairness.
The investigations originated from anonymous sources, primarily focusing on claims that the justices improperly influenced the release of Justice Azmiralda’s husband from criminal custody. However, evidence suggests any communications with the criminal court occurred post-release, casting substantial doubt on the substantive basis of these allegations.
Simultaneously, the parliament reduced the Supreme Court’s composition from seven to five justices, a move interpreted by many as a strategic mechanism to consolidate governmental control over judicial institutions.
International Law and Democratic Accountability
The United Nations has forcefully emphasized the Maldives’ international legal obligations, reminding the government that maintaining an independent judiciary is fundamental to protecting human rights and ensuring democratic accountability. The UN warned that such institutional manipulation could establish a dangerous precedent, potentially enabling future governments to systematically neutralize judicial oversight.
This unprecedented judicial purge raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the fundamental principles of democratic governance. By targeting judges who appear to be conducting impartial constitutional reviews, the parliament risks undermining the very institutional mechanisms designed to prevent governmental overreach.
Legal experts and international observers are closely monitoring the situation, viewing these developments as a critical test of the Maldives’ commitment to democratic principles and rule of law.
As the international community watches, the Maldives stands at a crucial crossroads, with its handling of this judicial crisis potentially signaling the trajectory of its democratic institutions in the coming years.
