The Maldivian government’s recent proposal to amend legislation granting the President the authority to appoint the heads of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and the Elections Commission (EC) has sparked significant debate over the potential impact on the independence of these bodies.
Today, Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim (PNC) expressed support for the amendments during a preliminary debate. Nazim, representing the Dhiggaru constituency, argued that the ACC is failing to fulfil its responsibilities effectively and that the current members lack professional qualifications. He cited the case of Bassam Adeel Jaleel, the former president of the Football Association of Maldives (FAM), who is accused of embezzling millions of rufiyaa, as an example of the ACC’s shortcomings in curbing major acts of corruption.
“We cannot wait and watch acts of corruption go unchecked during this five-year term as well. The people gave us a supermajority in the Parliament to make reforms. We do not see acts of corruption being curbed,” Nazim stated, advocating for the President to have the supreme authority to appoint the heads of the ACC and EC.
The proposed amendments, sponsored by Felidhoo MP Adam Zahir (PNC) and Kelaa MP Abdulla Shareef (PNC), would shift the current system—where presidents and vice presidents of the commissions are elected internally—to one where the President nominates candidates, subject to parliamentary approval.
Opposition parties have voiced strong objections to the proposed changes. The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), the largest opposition party, issued a statement denouncing the amendments as a threat to the constitutionally mandated checks and balances. The MDP emphasised that the independence of oversight bodies like the ACC is crucial for preventing undue executive influence and maintaining a democratic governance system.
“Making the people responsible for the administrative management of the commissions appointed by the President is an uncivilised act of direct influence of the ruling power on the commissions,” the MDP declared, warning that these measures could erode the country’s constitutional framework.
Critics argue that granting the President authority to appoint the heads of the ACC could further politicise the commission, undermining its ability to function impartially and independently. They assert that the solution lies not in increasing executive control but in implementing reforms that strengthen the ACC’s autonomy and capacity to combat corruption effectively.
In many democratic countries, anti-corruption bodies are established with robust safeguards to ensure their independence from political influence. For instance, nations like the United Kingdom and Australia have anti-corruption agencies that operate independently of the executive branch. Appointments to these bodies often involve multi-party committees or judicial panels, reducing the risk of politicisation and enhancing public trust in their operations.
Advocates for an independent ACC in the Maldives suggest that similar measures could be adopted to safeguard the commission’s autonomy. This could include transparent appointment processes involving multiple stakeholders, fixed terms for commission members to prevent arbitrary dismissal, and clear legal protections that allow the ACC to operate without fear of political retribution.
The need for an independent and effective ACC is seen as paramount in the Maldives’ efforts to combat corruption and promote good governance. Strengthening the commission’s independence could enhance its ability to investigate and prosecute corruption cases impartially, thereby increasing public confidence in the government’s commitment to accountability and transparency.
As the parliamentary debate continues, many are calling for a reconsideration of the proposed amendments. They urge the government to focus on legislative reforms that reinforce the ACC’s independence rather than measures that could potentially increase political influence over the commission.
The future effectiveness of the ACC may well depend on the decisions made in the coming weeks, with significant implications for the Maldives’ democratic institutions and the rule of law.
