The Attorney General’s Office has informed the Supreme Court that cases involving constitutional amendments passed by the People’s Majlis through proper procedures cannot be reviewed by any court. The statement was made during a hearing concerning a legal challenge against a recent constitutional amendment.
The procedural objection was raised in response to a case filed by former Kendhoo constituency MP and lawyer Ali Hussain, who is seeking to nullify an amendment that results in Members of Parliament losing their seats if they leave or are expelled from their parties. The Attorney General’s Office argued that the case cannot proceed as it does not fall within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
Representing the Attorney General’s Office, lawyer Fathimath Haleem stated that constitutional amendments do not qualify as legal matters for judicial review. She explained that while amendments are commonly referred to as laws, they follow a special legislative process and should be considered part of the Constitution rather than ordinary legislation.
Justice Aisha Shujoon inquired about the appropriate judicial forum for reviewing constitutional amendments. In response, the Attorney General’s Office asserted that no court holds the authority to review amendments enacted in accordance with constitutional principles and procedures.
Ali Hussain’s lawyer, Mahfooz Saeed, countered the argument by stating that amendments must be passed as laws and therefore can be subject to judicial review. He argued that constitutional provisions should be interpreted consistently and that conflicts between amendments and existing articles can be addressed by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, as outlined in the Courts Act, includes cases that:
- Could lead to a constitutional vacuum or disrupt the constitutional system;
- Arise between state institutions regarding constitutional interpretation;
- Involve constitutional matters of national interest.
Ali Hussain has requested that the amendment be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it contradicts several articles of the Constitution, including Articles 4, 5, 8, 73, and 90. He has further urged the Supreme Court to rule that the amendment should not apply to sitting MPs.
The anti-defection law, which initially introduced similar provisions, was previously passed by the People’s Majlis in 2018 but was later repealed. The Supreme Court’s ruling on this case is expected to set a precedent for future constitutional amendments and their judicial review.
Discussion