Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Amendment Preventing MPs From Defecting From Parties

The Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional amendment requiring Members of Parliament to vacate their seats upon defecting from or being expelled by their political party is constitutional. The landmark verdict reinforces the legality of anti-defection measures within the Maldives' political system. The ruling follows a petition filed by former MP Ali Hussain, who challenged the validity of the amendment. Hussain argued that the provision violated Articles 26, 75, and 90 of the Constitution and threatened to disrupt the country's three-party presidential framework. The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), the main opposition, also intervened in the legal challenge. Chief Justice Abdul Ghanee Mohamed, delivering the majority opinion of the full bench, rejected these arguments. He asserted that the Majlis (the Maldivian Parliament) possesses the sovereign power to amend the Constitution. The Chief Justice further noted that such amendments align with the rule of law and are consistent with the norms of independent democracies globally. In his detailed analysis, the Chief Justice referenced legal precedents regarding anti-defection laws across various presidential and parliamentary systems. He highlighted that a similar law was passed in the Maldives in 2017 and had been previously upheld by the court. Consequently, the Supreme Court confirmed that the amendment applies to the current 20th Parliament. While the decision was supported by six other judges, the ruling was not unanimous. Justice Aisha Shujune Muhammad issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that the amendment should be repealed. Justice Shujune contended that MPs are elected on individual merit and should be free to prioritize the interests of their constituents over party loyalty, even if it necessitates leaving their political party. This verdict sets a critical precedent for legislative stability in the Maldives, ensuring that MPs remain tied to the party platform under which they were elected, while sparking a debate over the balance between party discipline and representative autonomy.