The Judicial Service Commission (JSC)’s composition is balanced by nature, but it is a lack of sincerity that leads to political influences seeping into the commission, says Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail, a former parliamentarian who chaired the parliamentary committee that drafted Maldives’ new constitution.
In last weekend’s episode of Sun’s ‘Editaruge Zuvaalu’ program, Ibra explained that JSC’s composition offers a delicate balance between the three powers of the state, and that tampering with this composition could be “very dangerous.”
The 10-member JSC is composed of:
Parliament Speaker
A representative from the Parliament
A representative of the President
A Supreme Court justice
A High Court judge
A lower court judge
A representative of the general public approved by Parliament
Civil Service Commission’s President
Attorney General
A representative of lawyers
Ibra explained that the JSC has three representatives from the legislative branch, three from the executive branch and three from the judicial branch, offering a delicate check and balance.
Ibrahim Ismail (Ibra). (Sun Photo)
“There’s a balance between the three, right? This is how [the composition was set]. The JSC was established with balance between the three powers of the state. Any change to this will tilt it some way,” he said.
Ibra believes no one is talking about the crux of the issue facing the judiciary.
“It is the point where a political party comes in that things go wrong,” he said.
He took the example of the role of the Maldives’ Parliament, the People’s Majlis.
“This is a question I frequently ask. Does this country now have a People’s Majlis? Or is it a Majlis of political parties? This is getting muddled now,” he said.
Speaker Abdul Raheem Abdulla presides over a parliamentary sitting on April 15, 2025. (Photo/People's Majlis)
Ibra said that political parties do not have a defined role in the Parliament as far as the law is concerned. But it is the Parliament, using its powers, that wrote provisions regarding political parties into its Standing Orders.
“Article 75 of the Constitution clearly defines the function of Parliament members. There’s no mention of the political party they represent. It talks about the people. It says that even though they may be elected for specific constituencies, they shall represent and work for the welfare of not only their constituencies but the country as a whole,” he said.
“They are there to have the voice of their constituency heard at the Parliament. They are not elected to get tin roofs for the homes of their constituents. They are charged with the responsibility of involving the people’s will when the Parliament is asked to make major decisions of national significance.”
Ibra said that the Constitution is being misinterpreted.
He said the issue isn’t with the Constitution, but with failure to implement the Constitution.
“Its lack of sincerity. Everything has been turned upside down,” he said.
Ibra said that the members of the JSC are only human beings, and that they are neither come to that position nor are removed from that position if they are found to be engaged in wrongdoing out of their own free will.
“They are appointed by a specific group of people. They are dismissed by a specific group of people. Now tell me how the place [commission] can avoid political ideologies,” he said.
Ibra said that potential political influence had been taken into consideration when the JSC was established. Hence, the reason for balancing the three powers of the state.
Ibra said that the JSC isn’t getting ‘political’ because the Parliament Speaker or a Parliament member sits in it, or because a representative of the President sits in it.
Some of the members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). (Photo/JSC)
The issue arises when people in responsible state positions abuse their power at will, he said.
The JSC has come under fire from both local and international legal experts over its decision to push for the dismissal of Supreme Court justices Dr. Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir.
On February 26, Azmiralda, Mahaz and then-Supreme Court justice Husnu Al-Suood were suspended by the JSC, citing an ongoing investigation by the against them by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). All three were hearing a case challenging the controversial move by the ruling People’s National Congress (PNC) – who hold a supermajority in the Parliament - to write anti-defection clauses into the Maldivian constitution.
Suood resigned from the top court in protest of JSC’s decision, and the commission later opened misconduct cases against Azmiralda and Mahaz, accusing them of conspiring to influence the Criminal Court.
On May 4, the JSC asked the Parliament to approve their dismissal. The Judiciary Committee, which is reviewing the recommendation, decided on Saturday to deny Azmiralda and Mahaz the chance to defend themselves against the allegations against them.
Three Supreme Court justices who were suspended (From R-L): Husnu Al-Suood, Mahaz Ali Zahir and Dr. Azmiralda Zahir.
Suood, Azmiralda and Mahaz' suspension by the JSC had come less than one hour ahead of a hearing scheduled at the Supreme Court regarding a request for an injunction to suspend the enforcement of controversial anti-defection clauses that were written into the Constitution last year. It also came shortly after the ruling PNC used its supermajority in the Parliament to push through amendments to the Judicature Act to downsize the Supreme Court bench from seven to five justices.
Meanwhile, the ACC has declined to provide any information regarding the their criminal investigation against the trio, which had triggered their suspension in the first place.
Both Azmiralda and Mahaz insist that the allegations against them are baseless and that the investigations by the JSC were tainted by the denial of due process to them.