Parliament has accepted a government-backed proposal to amend the Judges Act, seeking to prohibit judges from engaging in business while in office. The bill, presented by North Thinadhoo MP Saudhulla Hilmy, passed on Monday with unanimous support from all 69 lawmakers in attendance. It has now been forwarded to the Judiciary Committee for further review.
According to its sponsors, the amendment is designed to protect the independence of the judiciary, reinforce public trust in the courts, and establish a clear code of conduct. The proposed changes tighten restrictions on judges’ financial activities while allowing narrowly defined exceptions.
If passed, judges would be barred from operating or participating in any form of business, leasing or purchasing state-owned land or property, or holding any financial interest, whether direct or indirect, in transactions involving the state. Judges may, however, retain minor shareholdings in state-owned enterprises, provided they are not significant shareholders. They would also be allowed to sell or lease personally owned land or housing at market rates, and to purchase residential property through government or private housing schemes.
Activities deemed non-conflicting with judicial independence may still be permitted, subject to the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) discretion.
The proposed changes in the Maldives echo practices in many common law jurisdictions that take judicial impartiality seriously by limiting commercial entanglements.
In the UK, the Guide to Judicial Conduct does not explicitly ban judges from all business activity but strongly cautions against any involvement that could call impartiality into question. Judges are expected to assess, or seek advice on, whether any financial interest or public activity might damage confidence in their independence. Even modest outside income, such as from publishing or speaking engagements, is only acceptable if it does not create a perception of bias. Complaints are handled by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, with sanctions available through the Lord Chancellor.
In Canada, the Ethical Principles for Judges similarly avoid an outright ban on business involvement but stress the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest. Judges are not to participate in matters involving past clients or any entity in which they have a financial interest. While investment and limited income from external sources may be permitted, judges must ensure these do not affect, or appear to affect, their impartiality.
While not a “pure” common law jurisdiction like the UK or Canada, the Maldives does draw significantly from common law traditions, particularly in its institutional design and legal processes. By proposing a more stringent set of rules, the Maldives joins a wider movement within the common law world toward enhancing transparency and public confidence in the judiciary. The bill’s strict prohibitions, combined with narrowly defined exceptions and oversight by the JSC, represent a notable attempt to insulate judges from private influence.
The Judiciary Committee will now consider the bill in detail before it proceeds to final reading and potential enactment.
