Supreme Court of Maldives


Republic of Maldives

(Unofficial Translation)

Decision of the Case

  • Case Number: 2017/SC-C/19, 2017/SC-C/20, 2017/SC-C/21, 2017/SC-C/22
  • Applicant: Mohamed Waheed Ibrahim, M A Ivory House/Male’, Saud Hussain Alhivilaage/ GA. Villingili, Abdul Latheef Mohamed, Funamage/ HA. Dhidhoo, Mohamed Ameeth Ahmed Manik, Rosemage/ GDH. Gaddhoo
  • Respondent: Secretariat of the Elections Commission
  • Nature of the case: Constitutional
  • Case Origin: Application form to file constitutional cases
  • Date of Application: 20 July 2017
  • Date of Registration: 25 July 2017
  • Date of Decision: 27 August 2017
  • Bench: Chief Justice Abdullah Saeed, Justice Abdullah Areef, Justice Ali Hameed Mohamed, Justice Adam Mohamed Abdullah, Justice Dr. Ahmed Abdullah Didi


These cases are, put forth by the parties as constitutional matters, claiming the decision of the Election Commission on 19th July 2017, declaring the vacancy of the elected seats of their constituencies at the People’s Majlis, as null and void.


With reference to the Case No. 2017/SC-C/17 of the Supreme Court of the Maldives, it is evident that the principles laid down in the case will be applied to the events after 13 July 2017, the date of judgment of the case. And the principles established in the case have been further confirmed by the Order No. 2017/SC-SJ/09 of the Supreme Court, and since the aforementioned case does not determine the membership of the Parliament Members at the date of judgment, but the principles to be applied to the actions of Parliament Members after the judgment date, and it is evident from the aforementioned Judgment and Court Order, the loss of membership of a Member of Parliament will be according to the principles established in the case, and there shall be no dispute as to the membership of a Member of Parliament who had been a Member of Parliament up to the date of that Judgment. Since a clear guideline on the application and execution of the principles of the case is clearly evident and a legal remedy is provided for the issue of floor-crossing in the Judgment and Court Order. Article 145 (c) of the Constitution states that The Supreme Court shall be the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution, the law, or any other matter dealt with by a court of law, and as the guardian of the Constitution and the law and also as the highest authority of the administration of justice a decision has been made on the law concerning the matter, and since the Constitution states that a decision of the Supreme Court on a matter shall be the final decision, and  as a legal remedy had been provided in the subject matter, as it does not necessitate a further judgment.

Therefore, with reference to Article 145(c), 299 (a) and 268 of the Constitution and, Case No. 2017/SC-C/19, 2017/SC-C/20, 2017/SC-C/21, and 2017/SC-C/22 that were submitted after the Judgment of Case No. 2017/SC-C/17 of Supreme Court, it is decided unanimously by the Justices’ of the Supreme Court that a further review and decision under Article 74 of the Constitution is not required.

You may also like...