The International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) is concerned about the recommendation by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) of the Republic of Maldives to dismiss Supreme Court Justices Dr Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir. The process leading to their removal raises grave concerns over the lack of due process and potential executive interference in the judiciary, with wider implications for the rule of law and human rights in the country.
IBAHRI Co-Chair Mark Stephens CBE stated: "The IBAHRI urges the government of the Maldives to immediately halt the dismissal proceedings against Justices Dr Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir and ensure that all future judicial decisions respect the principles of due process and judicial independence. The government must take all necessary steps to reinforce the protection of judges in line with international norms and standards."
Mr Stephens added: "The way in which these two Supreme Court justices are being dismissed poses a real and immediate threat to the independence of the judiciary in the Maldives. The country's Constitution and international standards are clear: without exception, judges cannot be removed without fair procedures and adequate safeguards. These protections are not privileges for judges but fundamental guarantees for the public to ensure that justice is administered impartially and without external influence. The dismissal procedure needs to be stopped since it violates basic due process rights."
"Consequences may well run further - research by both the World Bank and Oxford University has demonstrated a strong connection between inward investment and a strong adherence to the Rule of Law. If investors in the Maldives can no longer trust the independence of the judiciary, then they will stop investing in the local economy."
On 18 February 2025 the Supreme Court of the Maldives heard a constitutional challenge against anti-defection clauses added to the Constitution. A week later, on 25 February, a bill was introduced in parliament seeking to reduce the Supreme Court from seven to five members. Before the Supreme Court was due to begin their final hearing in the anti-defection case, the Government of the Maldives passed the bill, reducing the size of the Supreme Court. On the same day, Justice Dr Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir were suspended under Section 25(p) of the Judicial Service Commission Act, which allows for the automatic suspension of judges based on an ongoing investigation by another body, without affording the judges an opportunity to challenge the decision. In this case it was the Anti-Corruption Commission. On 4 May, the JSC recommended the dismissal of the judges. Parliament supported this decision and voted to dismiss the judges on 14 May 2025.
IBAHRI Co-Chair Hina Jilani commented: "The IBAHRI strongly condemns the measures taken against judges in the Maldives, which seriously endanger the independence of the judiciary and violate fundamental due process guarantees. The removal of judges through opaque and politically influenced processes, particularly without public hearings, adequate notice, or a meaningful opportunity to respond, undermines the essential principle that the judiciary is free from external pressure. Judicial independence is a fundamental pillar of the rule of law and a precondition for democracy. When judicial independence is compromised, the rule of law weakens, and with it, the protection of human rights."
Ms Jilani added: "The Maldives Government should consider amending Section 25(p) of the Judicial Service Commission Act to ensure that disciplinary measures against judges are subject to independent oversight review, and that judges are afforded a fair and public hearing. Upholding judicial independence is not just a matter of constitutional law but a fundamental commitment to human rights and the rule of law."
The proceedings brought against the judges raise fundamental questions about the Maldives government's respect for judicial independence and due process - cornerstones of any democratic society and essential for safeguarding human rights. In its General Comment No 32, the Human Rights Committee stated that judges can only be removed from their position on grounds of gross misconduct or incompetence. The Constitution of the Maldives contains a similar provision. As such, the IBAHRI asserts that the Maldives is in violation of both its domestic and international obligations to protect the rights and independence of judges.
The IBAHRI is alarmed by reports that the judges were not given effective judicial protection to contest their dismissal: their chosen counsel were refused the opportunity to speak at disciplinary proceedings and had not initially been informed of the details of the allegations against the judges.
Also, the IBAHRI regrets that the proceedings were not held publicly. The Maldives is bound by Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to protect and respect the right to be informed promptly and in detail about, the right to a public hearing and the right to defend oneself.
International standards emphasise that any disciplinary proceedings against judges must respect the principles of judicial independence and due process. The United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary stress that judges are entitled to a fair hearing by an independent authority, and may only be removed if they are proven to be unfit for judicial office. The Principles further outline the need for security of tenure of judges, which guarantees that their position is not contingent on appeasing the government. Disciplinary proceedings must also be subject to an independent review.
Furthermore, the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles also provide guidelines for good governance and democracy for Commonwealth states and emphasise the importance of ensuring adequate security of tenure and protection of judges. The independence of the judiciary is also guaranteed by the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct . These international standards are essential to ensure that judges can perform their duties without fear or favour, which is fundamental to the rule of law and the protection of human rights. The IBAHRI urges the government of the Maldives to adhere to these principles.
Since Abdulla Yameen took office in 2013, the Maldives has been gripped by a rule of law recession defined by a severe crackdown on dissent, the erosion of fundamental freedoms and, most notably, executive overreach in the judiciary.
On 25 May 2025, it was reported that an investigation had been launched against two judges who opposed the dismissals of Justices Dr Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir. The actions of the Maldivian authorities will likely have a chilling effect on the independence of the judiciary. Judges cannot perform their duties effectively under fear of sanction or punishment.
