Deputy Speaker of the Parliament, Ahmed Nazim, stated today that Supreme Court judges are caught in political currents and issuing politically motivated rulings.

Speaking during a debate on a bill proposed by PNC member Abdus-Sattar Mohamed of Hoarafushi constituency to reduce the number of Supreme Court judges, Nazim said that we are witnessing people who should remain politically neutral being drawn into political currents.

“We can see them signaling their readiness to dance to the tunes of political leaders,” Nazim said.

He emphasized that judges should remain detached from political matters, expressing regret that this was not the case. Nazim further claimed that the Supreme Court appears to be interfering in political affairs and issuing politically motivated judgments.

Nazim supported the bill and stated that if this change is deemed necessary, they would have the courage to implement it.

He also criticized the Supreme Court for proceeding with a case seeking to invalidate the constitutional amendment regarding parliamentarians losing their seats. Nazim claimed that the Supreme Court had also raised questions about parliamentary privileges.

“The current Supreme Court has raised questions that give us pause. They questioned whether the court would have no jurisdiction if Parliament decided Islam was not the state religion, despite the Constitution clearly stating it is. The same section states that making and amending laws in accordance with Islamic principles is a parliamentary power,” Nazim said.

He added that this is an appropriate time to change the Supreme Court bench.

Member Sattar’s amendment to the Courts Act proposes reducing the number of judges and completing all procedures to remove two judges deemed unqualified within seven days of passing the bill.

The discussion about this government-supported change to the Supreme Court bench began while a full bench was reviewing a case to invalidate the amendment regarding parliamentarians losing their seats. The state requested the court to rule that it cannot review constitutional amendments, but the judges decided to proceed with the case.