Former Chief Justice Ahmed Abdulla Didi has declared that the removal of Supreme Court Justices Mahaz Ali Zahir and Azmiralda Zahir earlier this month was unconstitutional, rendering the appointment of their replacements legally invalid.
In a post on X, Dr Didi said there was “no doubt” that the 14 May dismissals violated established laws and procedures. As a result, he argued, the judges appointed in their place were selected through an equally flawed process.
“It is a principle that after the removal of judges under an unconstitutionally invalid procedure, the judges appointed must also be appointed under an invalid procedure,” he wrote.
He warned that such appointments give rise to a “de facto court,” meaning a court that lacks the full legal legitimacy required by the Constitution.
“Any court formed without the appointment of judges under a constitutionally valid procedure will be considered a de facto court,” Dr Didi said.
The former chief justice’s remarks come amid mounting domestic and international scrutiny over the manner in which the two justices were removed.
UN Raises Alarm Over Judicial independence
Last week, the United Nations expressed serious concern over the dismissals, warning that the actions of the Maldivian Parliament and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) posed a threat to the independence of the judiciary.
In a statement, UN Human Rights Office spokesperson Jeremy Laurence said the removal of the two justices undermined safeguards meant to protect the judiciary from political interference.
“The dismissal by the Maldives Parliament of two Supreme Court justices raises serious concerns about respect for the independence of the judiciary,” Laurence said.
The justices were removed following an investigation by the JSC and the Anti-Corruption Commission, initiated in February 2025—around the time the Supreme Court began hearing a politically sensitive case concerning constitutional amendments.
Those amendments, if upheld, could disqualify Members of Parliament who cross party lines.
Critics have condemned the JSC’s handling of the matter, citing procedural violations including the denial of the justices’ requests to present evidence and address the relevant parliamentary committee. Parliament proceeded with the vote without giving the justices an opportunity to respond.
The final vote saw 68 MPs supporting the dismissals, while 11 opposition lawmakers from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) voted against.
In the days that followed, a third justice resigned and Chief Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan retired, sparking further concerns about judicial independence.
Laurence urged Maldivian authorities to adhere to both constitutional and international legal obligations.
“Checks and balances between the different branches of the State, including a strong and independent judiciary, play a vital role in ensuring fidelity to the rule of law by all branches of Government and the effective protection of human rights,” he said.
The government has denied any political motivation, insisting the investigation’s timing and changes within the JSC were coincidental. However, legal experts continue to warn that the lack of due process could erode public trust and set a troubling precedent.