Maldives: Supermajority enables ‘rule by law’

The story of constitutional developments in Maldives in 2025 is one of executive capture of key constitutional organs including the judiciary. At its centre lies a controversial constitutional amendment passed with convenient alacrity, even as the challenge to it languishes before the Supreme Court. 

Together with the ruling party’s overwhelming parliamentary majority, it has enabled the progressive dismantling of institutional checks and balances. The effect of these developments is unprecedented. President Mohamed Muizzu of the People’s National Congress (PNC) today exercises greater control over Parliament than any previous Maldivian president.

Control through supermajority 

In November 2024, a member of the PNC introduced a Bill seeking to amend the Constitution to incorporate anti-defection rules. The Bill was submitted at 8.43pm on 19 November. Backed by the PNC’s 75-seat supermajority in the 93-member Parliament, the Bill was tabled, deliberated and passed in less than five hours the next day. 

The amendment disqualifies lawmakers who change party affiliation or are expelled from the party under whose banner they were elected. Given the PNC’s supermajority, the amendment effectively deters internal dissent and shields the ruling party from divisions. 

Opposition lawmakers, lawyers and members of the public protested against the law. The Bar Council of Maldives unsuccessfully requested an opportunity to share its concerns. President Muizzu, on his part, was all praise for the amendment, claiming that it would “improve political stability.” Since then, the government’s control over Parliament has opened the door to a wave of executive aggrandisement, advanced under the guise of legal amendments. What has unfolded is not rule of law but rule by law. 

Independent institutions compromised

Less than a week after the amendment was passed, the government began using its supermajority to influence the independence of constitutionally established institutions, including the Elections Commission and the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). Fresh amendments allowed the President to nominate the President and Vice-President of the Commissions. 

In 2025, the ACC levelled what are widely thought to be fabricated allegations against sitting Supreme Court judges. A government-controlled media regulator was established. Politicians and political activists were appointed to commissions that remained independent only on paper.

Judicial independence undermined

On 24 November 2024, former MP and lawyer Ali Hussain petitioned the Supreme Court to strike down the anti-defection amendment. Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)—the main Opposition party—and The Democrats also joined the case. They argued that the amendment violates the Constitution’s “basic structure,” including popular sovereignty, constitutional supremacy, and the separation of powers, as well as the rights to vote, contest public office, and exercise parliamentary privilege.

Three months later, the government’s counsel argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of amendments. It led to at least two judges asking how violations of fundamental constitutional principles could then be resolved. The next day, the Supreme Court rejected the jurisdiction challenge. 

Then, on 23 February 2025, a PNC MP proposed a Bill that would reduce the number of Supreme Court justices from seven to five. PNC members also discussed kickstarting a parliamentary investigation into alleged misconduct by some of the sitting judges. That same day, the President replaced his representative on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) with a former PNC candidate who had contested the most recent parliamentary elections.

These actions were strongly criticised by the Opposition as “a clear attempt to threaten and subvert the country’s highest judicial authority during a highly sensitive constitutional case.” Two days later, at nightfall, the parliament’s Judiciary Committee passed the Bill for reducing the number of judges without any changes, and sent it to the full Parliament for debate. 

The following day, within an hour of the passage of this law without any changes, the JSC suspended three Supreme Court justices: Husnu Al-Suood, Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir. As a result, the Court was forced to cancel the scheduled hearing on the injunction sought against the anti-defection clauses. 

On 4 March, Justice Al-Suood resigned, accusing the President of exerting influence on the judiciary to block the case against the anti-defection amendment. On 19 March, Justice Hussain Shaheed was appointed to the Supreme Court following approval of his nomination by Parliament.

On 4 May, the JSC recommended the dismissal of Justices Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir. The request of both judges to address the parliamentary committee was denied, despite the Counsel General of Parliament advising the Judiciary Committee that the JSC had not followed due process. Parliament proceeded to remove the two judges, even as concerns were raised by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, LAWASIA and the United Nations. 

On 11 June, two judges were appointed to the vacant seats. A new Chief Justice was appointed on 26 August, following the retirement of the previous one. In total, the President was able to appoint four judges of his choice to the now five-judge Supreme Court. 

Media under siege

Three websites known to be critical of the government were blocked within a month of President Muizzu coming to power in late-2023. In November 2024, an independent MP proposed a Bill that expanded the government’s control over media outlets. The Bill proposed a seven-member Media and Broadcasting Commission, headed by presidential appointees, with the authority to levy fines of up to MVR 10,000 on reporters. Media representatives and Opposition leaders alleged that the government had covertly supported the Bill, which was later withdrawn. 

On 18 August 2025, however, the same MP submitted a new Bill that expanded the scope of government control. Now, the seven-member commission could fine media companies, block websites, stop broadcasts during investigations and cancel newspaper registrations through court orders. The Bill also allowed investigations based on vague terms and retrospective investigation of complaints.

Although four members of the commission would be chosen by media outlets, three—including the chair—would be appointed by the President. Given that the Bill vests significant control in the legislature, and that the legislature is dominated by a single party—the PNC—the commission becomes especially vulnerable to presidential influence.

This time, the PNC openly supported the Bill. The Maldives Journalists Association and the Maldives Media Council warned that it would endanger press freedom. Once again, the President engaged in constitutional gaslighting, by insisting that he has “no interest in controlling the media” even as a spokesperson from his office asserted that the Bill would “empower the media.” Unsurprisingly, the Bill was passed on 16 September during a Special Session of Parliament. 

Will the Court rise to the occasion? 

With four judges handpicked by the PNC in the Supreme Court, there is little hope of meaningful scrutiny of government actions. The anti-defection rules ensure that PNC members have to toe the line of the government. Absence of public consultations and the routine abuse of parliamentary urgency have become the norm. In November 2025, a constitutional amendment abolished Atoll Councils, exemplifying this dynamic. These Councils have long served as an essential layer of local governance, linking island communities to the national framework and ensuring representation beyond the capital. 

The constitutional and legislative changes pushed through by the ruling party’s supermajority are not mere amendments. They violate both the text and spirit of a constitutional order, and effectively render the President an elected authoritarian. 

This is how Maldives finds itself at the present turning point. Now, the Supreme Court must summon the courage to move forward with the anti-defection case, which is currently gathering dust. Until it does, the supermajority will remain intact—and the Constitution’s democratic promises will continue to be eroded. 

Dr. Shamsul Falaah is a legal scholar who writes on Maldivian constitutional issues for local newspapers and contributes to academic projects and international academic blogs. His areas of interest include comparative constitutional law, Maldivian and Islamic constitutionalism, human rights, and the intersections of law, society, and religion. He is the author of A Legal Critique of the Constitutional Amendment Establishing Anti‑Defection (2026).