On 26 February 2025, the Maldives witnessed a seismic shift in its democratic framework. The ruling People’s National Congress (PNC), leveraging its parliamentary supermajority, forced through amendments to the Judicature Act, reducing the Supreme Court bench from seven to five justices. This move, executed with dizzying speed and scant regard for dissent, has sparked a firestorm of criticism from opposition parties, legal scholars, and the Bar Council, who decry it as a brazen assault on judicial independence. Timed suspiciously ahead of a critical Supreme Court hearing on anti-defection clauses introduced in November 2024, the legislation, coupled with the sudden suspension of three justices, raises profound questions about the separation of powers, the dangers of absolute power, and the implications for a young democracy like the Maldives, with parallels to other nations’ struggles.
The Bedrock of Democracy: Separation of Powers
The separation of powers, dividing governance into legislative, executive, and judicial branches, is a cornerstone of democratic systems worldwide. Enshrined in the Maldives’ 2008 Constitution, this principle ensures that no single entity monopolises authority, safeguarding against tyranny and preserving the rule of law. The judiciary, as an independent arbiter, plays a pivotal role in checking legislative and executive overreach, interpreting laws, and protecting constitutional rights.
Yet, the events of February 2025 reveal a troubling erosion of this balance. The PNC’s supermajority, wielded under the direction of President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu, has blurred the lines between legislative and executive power, effectively transforming Parliament into a tool of the presidency. The swift passage of the Judicature Act amendments, followed by the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) suspension of Justices Husnu Al-Suood, Dr. Azmiralda Zahir, and Mahaz Ali Zahir, ostensibly due to an Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) investigation, suggests a coordinated effort to neuter the judiciary. This convergence of power threatens the very foundation of Maldivian democracy, a system still in its adolescence, having emerged from decades of autocratic rule only in 2008.
Absolute Power and Lord Acton’s Warning
The 19th-century historian Lord Acton famously observed, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This axiom encapsulates the human tendency to abuse unchecked authority, a peril magnified in systems lacking robust institutional checks. For Acton, absolute power not only distorts the moral compass of those who wield it but also undermines the public good, as self-interest supplants accountability.
In the Maldives, this warning resonates with chilling clarity. The PNC’s actions, ramming through legislation despite objections from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), expelling dissenting MPs from the chamber, and overriding the counsel general’s concerns, demonstrate a concentration of power that brooks no opposition. The retroactive provision in the Judicature Act, mandating the JSC to deem two justices “incompetent” within five days, flouts due process and constitutional norms, as highlighted by the Bar Council’s citation of violations to Articles 148, 149, and 154. The subsequent suspension of three justices, conveniently timed to derail a Supreme Court challenge to the anti-defection laws, further fuels allegations of executive manipulation of judicial processes.
For a fragile democracy like the Maldives, Lord Acton’s caution is not merely theoretical. The consolidation of power under President Muizzu’s administration risks entrenching a system where dissent is stifled, institutions are hollowed out, and the will of the people is subverted. This pattern is not unique to the Maldives, Türkiye under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan offers a stark comparison. Since 2016, Erdoğan’s government has purged thousands of judges and prosecutors, replacing them with loyalists, effectively subordinating the judiciary to executive will. Similarly, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has used parliamentary supermajorities to amend the constitution and pack courts, eroding democratic checks. These cases illustrate how absolute power, once consolidated, can dismantle democratic norms, a trajectory the Maldives risks following.
The Ripple Effects: Progress, Economy, and Global Standing
The implications of this power grab extend far beyond the courtroom or parliamentary chamber. For a nation striving to solidify its democratic credentials, the undermining of judicial independence and separation of powers could stall progress across multiple fronts, with lessons from other democracies underscoring the stakes.
Domestic Progress: A judiciary stripped of autonomy cannot effectively uphold constitutional rights or check executive excesses. The anti-defection clauses, which the Supreme Court was poised to review, illustrate this danger. By empowering parties to unseat MPs at will, these provisions stifle political pluralism and entrench party loyalty over public interest, contrary to Article 75 of the Constitution, as noted by dissenting PNC MP Ahmed Azaan Marzooq. Without a robust judiciary to adjudicate such disputes, democratic discourse risks being replaced by authoritarian fiat, alienating citizens and weakening trust in governance. Poland’s experience under the Law and Justice Party (PiS) mirrors this: since 2015, PiS has undermined judicial independence, triggering mass protests and a crisis of legitimacy that has fractured national unity.
Economic Consequences: The Maldives’ economy, heavily reliant on tourism and foreign investment, thrives on stability and the rule of law. Investors seek predictable legal frameworks and impartial dispute resolution, qualities jeopardised by a compromised judiciary. The 2014 reduction of the Supreme Court bench under President Abdulla Yameen coincided with economic turbulence and international censure, a precedent that looms large today. If perceptions of instability grow, tourist arrivals, accounting for over 60% of GDP, could falter, and foreign capital may retreat, stunting development in a nation already grappling with climate vulnerabilities and debt. Venezuela’s economic collapse under Nicolás Maduro, accelerated by the erosion of judicial and legislative checks, serves as a grim warning: political instability can devastate even resource-rich economies.
International Standing: The Maldives has cultivated an image as a progressive small-island state, championing climate action and democratic reform on the global stage. Yet, the events of February 2025 undermine this narrative. The international community, including bodies like the United Nations and Commonwealth, has historically scrutinised democratic regressions in the Maldives, as seen during Yameen’s tenure. The Bar Council’s plea to President Muizzu to reject the bill aligns with concerns from 71 lawyers who petitioned Parliament, signalling a domestic consensus that could amplify global pressure. Should the Maldives slide into democratic backsliding, it risks diplomatic isolation, sanctions, or diminished credibility in forums like the UNRC, where it has sought to lead. South Africa’s post-apartheid journey offers a counterpoint: its Constitutional Court’s independence has bolstered its global reputation, even amidst political turbulence, a model the Maldives could emulate.
Lessons from History
The Maldives is no stranger to the perils of concentrated power. The 2014 bench reduction under Yameen, reversed in 2019 under Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, offers a cautionary tale: short-term political gains can exact long-term costs. Today’s crisis echoes that episode but with greater stakes, given the timing of the anti-defection case and the PNC’s supermajority. Former MP Ali Hussain, who filed the constitutional challenge, alleges that the ACC investigation into the justices was “manufactured,” a claim that, if substantiated, would expose a deliberate subversion of justice.
For the Maldives to avert Lord Acton’s prophecy, it must reinforce its democratic guardrails. The Bar Council’s call for President Muizzu to return the bill to Parliament for revision offers a lifeline, as does the resilience of civil society and opposition voices. Judicial independence must be restored, potentially through constitutional amendments clarifying the JSC’s autonomy and impeachment processes. Internationally, the Maldives could seek technical assistance from democratic partners, much as Botswana has done to strengthen its judiciary, signalling a commitment to reform.
A Democracy at the Crossroads
The Maldives stands at a precipice. The PNC’s push to shrink the Supreme Court and silence judicial oversight exemplifies the seductive allure of absolute power—and its corrosive potential. Lord Acton’s words serve as both a diagnosis and a warning: unchecked authority invites corruption, and in a young democracy, the fallout can be existential. The progress of the past 17 years, economic growth, democratic maturation, and global engagement—hangs in the balance. Whether the Maldives heeds the lessons of Turkey, Hungary, and others or charts a course toward resilience like South Africa, will shape its destiny for its people and the watching world. The clock is ticking on this fragile democracy’s survival.
