A significant collective of the civil society organisations (CSOs) in the Maldives on Thursday expressed “grave concerns” over the constitutional amendments submitted by the Mohamed Muizzu administration to Parliament, along with their truncated passage and ratification by President Mohamed Muizzu.
CSOs party to the joint statement included: Transparency Maldives (TM), Save Maldives, Association for Democracy in the Maldives (ADM), Uthema, Equal Right Initiative, Zero Waste Maldives, Maldives Local Council’s Association (MLCA), Hope for Women, BeLeaf Maldives, Project Thimaaveshi, and Ecocare Maldives.
In a joint press statement the CSOs pointed to the “marked absence of transparency” in an amendment process highlighted as “unprecedented.” The Muizzu administration failed to uphold adequate procedural safeguards while significantly handicapping fundamental democratic principles, according to the statement.
Parliament derailed due process and failed to uphold, and thus violated, Article 4 of the Constitution by completely excluding the people from the amendment process, the organisations contended.
All the powers of the State of the Maldives are derived from, and remain with, the citizens.
— Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives (2008).
Allowing for a bill with such wide-ranging ramifications to be submitted late at night, and then passing and ratifying it the following day, “undermines the ability and responsibility of parliamentarians” to scrutinise, research, and engage in an informed debate. It also excludes any form of public inclusion or engagement in what are, inarguably, fundamental changes to the law, the CSOs stated.
“Constitutional amendments, fundamental to the governance of the nation, require robust deliberation with an effective public participatory process to ensure their implications are fully understood and debated. Without adequate time for reflection and preparation, parliamentarians, civil society and the general public are being deprived of the opportunity to provide meaningful arguments and facilitate a transparent and democratic exchange of ideas,” the statement underscored.
According to the CSOs, Attorney General Ahmed Usham failed his Constitutional mandate by allowing such significant changes to proceed without due public consultation and engagement — inaction which, according to the statement, raised concerns about the adherence to due process and the integrity of the Muizzu administration.
The Attorney General shall promote, protect, uphold and defend the rule of law, the public safety, the freedoms of the public and the public interest.
— Article 133 (e) of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives (2008).
Singling out one specific amendment of “particular concern,” the CSOs emphasised that the change to Article 115 (Powers and Mandate of the President)—through the addition of a clause that vests the power of formulating national development policies and plans solely in the President of the Maldives—was deeply concerning. Prior to the 13th Amendment to the Decentralization Act, this responsibility was mandated to local councils and conducted in consultation with the public.
“The consolidation of authority within the executive branch contradicts fundamental democratic principles regarding separation of powers and represents a significant departure from established decentralization laws and efforts put in place by several administrations that have been instrumental in the nation’s emerging democratic development,” the statement read.
The amendment to Article 73 stipulates that a member of parliament (MP) will lose their seat if they resign from or are removed from the political party through which they were elected—and similarly, that an independent MP joining a political party will also forfeit their seat—undermines the foundational democratic principle of representative choice and constrains the political independence of parliamentarians, the CSOs noted.
Should political parties be granted the power to remove elected MPs, it could compel parliamentarians to vote in alignment with every position endorsed by their party, regardless of personal views or the interests of their constituents, and MPs would be unable to oppose party whip-line bills or exercise independent judgment without risking the loss of their seat, the statement noted.
The organisations underscored that the centralisation of control would weaken internal party democracy and effectively cripple the autonomy of elected representatives.
“We acknowledge that floor crossing for political gain is a significant concern that undermines the integrity of parliamentary members and poses a serious risk of fostering corruption. Addressing this issue requires a sustainable solution derived through a consultative process. Hence, rather than amending the Constitution in a manner that could centralize excessive power, efforts should be directed toward strengthening the existing anti-corruption legal
framework,” the CSOs outlined in their joint statement.
The bypassing of procedural safeguards risks compromising the integrity of the legislative process and undermines public trust in governance, the statement said, going on to highlight that such practices also raise questions about the true intent of the amendment as well as the transparency and accountability of the administration in terms of corruption and concentration of powers.
“We the undersigned call for adherence to democratic norms and legal principles in the legislative process, particularly when it involves changes to the nation’s supreme legal document, The Constitution. We urge the government and parliament to ensure sufficient consultation, enable broader public participation, and uphold the values of democracy, transparency and accountability in all constitutional amendments,” the CSOs said.
