UN Expert Condemns Maldives’ Suspension of Judges as Threat to Judicial Independence

Satterthwaite pointed to a series of actions that, when viewed collectively, suggest an orchestrated effort to influence or weaken the judiciary’s capacity to provide independent oversight.

In a strongly worded statement issued today, a United Nations human rights expert expressed deep concern over the suspension and disciplinary actions taken against three Supreme Court justices in the Maldives. The actions are being widely perceived as a strategic attempt to obstruct judicial review of a controversial constitutional amendment passed in November 2024, which introduced strict anti-defection measures targeting members of Parliament.

Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, highlighted the troubling pattern of events that appear to threaten the autonomy of the Maldives’ highest court. The judges affected—Justice Dr. Azmiralda Zahir, Justice Husnu Al Suood, and Justice Mahaz Ali Zahir—had reportedly taken firm stances during internal deliberations over the legality of the amendment.

A Pattern of Retaliation?

Satterthwaite pointed to a series of actions that, when viewed collectively, suggest an orchestrated effort to influence or weaken the judiciary’s capacity to provide independent oversight. On 25 February 2025, the Maldivian Parliament passed a bill to amend the Judicature Act, which not only reduced the number of justices on the Supreme Court bench from seven to five but also instructed the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to identify two judges for removal based on alleged incompetence.

The very next day, the President of the Anti-Corruption Commission notified the JSC of ongoing investigations into anonymous complaints targeting the three justices. These complaints arose shortly after the justices expressed opposition to the constitutional amendment in question. That same day, the JSC moved swiftly to suspend all three judges and initiated separate disciplinary proceedings against them. Justice Husnu Al Suood, facing mounting pressure, resigned in protest.

“This sequence of legislative and administrative actions, taken together, raises red flags regarding the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary,” Satterthwaite stated.

Violations of Due Process

Particularly alarming to the UN expert were reports indicating that two of the suspended justices—Dr. Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir—were denied basic due process rights during their disciplinary hearings. According to credible sources, their legal representatives were not permitted to speak during the proceedings, and the hearings were conducted behind closed doors, raising concerns over transparency and fairness.

“The disciplinary proceedings brought against the three Supreme Court Justices appear to violate the principle that judges can only be dismissed on serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence, and only in accordance with fair procedures that guarantee objectivity and impartiality as enshrined in the Constitution and the law,” Satterthwaite emphasized.

She warned that the cumulative effect of the suspensions, ongoing investigations, and procedural irregularities may amount to undue interference with judicial independence—an essential tenet of democratic governance and the rule of law.

International Scrutiny and Response

The actions taken by the Maldivian government and judiciary watchdog have sparked international attention, with growing concern among legal experts and rights advocates about the future of judicial impartiality in the country.

Satterthwaite confirmed that she is in direct communication with the Maldivian government regarding the matter and has requested detailed information about the legal basis and procedural safeguards underpinning the disciplinary actions. She stressed the need for the government to uphold international human rights standards and ensure that the judiciary remains free from political pressure.

“The independence of the judiciary is not just a constitutional guarantee—it is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. Undermining it can have long-lasting consequences for the rule of law and the protection of human rights,” she said.

Background: Controversial Amendment

The constitutional amendment passed in November 2024 introduced strict anti-defection provisions aimed at preventing elected parliamentarians from switching political affiliations without facing automatic loss of their seats. While the government framed the move as necessary for political stability, critics argue that the law could be used to stifle dissent and entrench ruling party power.

The Supreme Court had begun deliberations on the amendment’s legality earlier this year, with the now-suspended justices reportedly playing key roles in the debate.

As legal and political tensions continue to escalate in the Maldives, the international community will be closely monitoring how the government responds to calls for transparency, fairness, and respect for judicial independence.