Introduction
The 2008 Constitution of the Republic of the Maldives marked a significant transition from a long-standing autocratic system to a modern presidential democracy founded on the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law. A key feature of this new constitutional order is the mechanism for holding the executive accountable, including the ultimate sanction of removal from office. This essay will examine the constitutional grounds and procedure for removing the President and Vice-President of the Maldives. It will explain the specific roles assigned to the People’s Majlis (the legislature) and the Supreme Court in this process. Finally, it will analyse what this dual-track procedure reveals about the intended balance between the political and legal character of impeachment in the Maldivian constitutional framework.
The Constitutional Grounds and Procedure for Removal
The process for removing the President from office is detailed in Article 100 of the 2008 Constitution. The same provisions apply to the removal of the Vice-President, as confirmed by Article 113. The framework establishes a multi-stage process involving both the legislative and judicial branches of government, setting a high bar for removal.
The grounds for removal are specified in Article 100(a). A resolution for impeachment can be brought if the President has committed:
- a direct violation of a tenet of Islam;
- a serious violation of the Constitution or the law; or
- gross misconduct unbefitting the office of the President.
These grounds are broad and require interpretation. While a "violation of the law" has a clear legal dimension, terms like "gross misconduct" are more ambiguous and can be subject to political interpretation by the legislature.
The procedure begins in the People’s Majlis. Under Article 100(b), a resolution to remove the President must be submitted to the Majlis, bearing the signatures of at least one-third of its total members. This initial requirement ensures that any impeachment attempt has a substantial degree of cross-party support and is not merely a frivolous action by a small minority. Following its submission, the resolution must be passed by a vote of at least two-thirds of the total membership of the Majlis (Article 100(c)). This supermajority requirement acts as a significant political safeguard, ensuring that the decision to proceed with impeachment reflects a broad consensus within the legislature.
The Roles of the People’s Majlis and the Supreme Court
The Maldivian impeachment process is notable for its clear division of labour between the People’s Majlis and the Supreme Court. Each institution has a distinct and crucial role.
The role of the People’s Majlis is fundamentally political. It acts as the initiator of the process and the body that brings the charge. The decision to table and vote on an impeachment resolution is driven by political considerations, calculations of public opinion, and the balance of power within the legislature. The requirement for a two-thirds supermajority means that the process is not simply a partisan tool for the majority party but demands a wider political coalition. The Majlis, therefore, functions as a grand inquest, determining whether the President’s conduct warrants a formal charge and trial.
However, unlike in some other presidential systems such as that of the United States where the legislature also conducts the trial, the Maldivian Constitution transfers the adjudicative function to the judiciary. Once the Majlis passes the resolution, Article 100(d) mandates that the Supreme Court "shall determine whether the President is guilty of the charge specified in the resolution." If the Supreme Court finds the President guilty, they are removed from office. The Supreme Court's role is therefore judicial. It is not asked for a political opinion but must conduct a legal determination of guilt based on the evidence presented against the specific charge passed by the Majlis.
The Legal-versus-Political Character of Impeachment
The structure of the impeachment process in the Maldives provides a clear insight into its hybrid legal-political character. The system is an attempt to balance the need for political accountability with the constitutional principle of the rule of law.
The political character is evident in the initiation and approval stages within the People's Majlis. The grounds for removal, particularly "gross misconduct," are inherently political and depend on the judgment of elected representatives. The entire first phase is a political contest where arguments are made to persuade a supermajority of legislators that the President's actions are severe enough to justify removal.
However, the process does not end there. By vesting the final determination of guilt in the Supreme Court, the framers of the 2008 Constitution deliberately injected a strong legal character into the process. This prevents a purely political removal where a powerful legislature could remove a president simply due to political disagreement or unpopularity. The Supreme Court is required to act as an impartial arbiter, assessing the charges against legal and constitutional standards. This judicialisation of the final stage is designed to ensure that removal is based on proven wrongdoing, thereby safeguarding the presidency from purely partisan attacks and upholding the separation of powers (Firdous, 2018).
In conclusion, the Maldivian model for presidential removal is a deliberate constitutional design that blends political and legal elements. The People’s Majlis exercises political judgment in bringing the charge, reflecting the President’s accountability to the people’s representatives. The Supreme Court then provides a crucial legal check, ensuring that this ultimate sanction is only applied after a formal judicial finding of guilt. This hybrid approach demonstrates a constitutional commitment to preventing both executive overreach and legislative tyranny, seeking a middle path between a purely political and a purely legal concept of impeachment.
References
- Constitution of the Republic of the Maldives (2008).
- Firdous, S. (2018) ‘Constitutional Adjudication and the Judicialization of Politics in the Maldives’. In: Yasin, A. and Firdous, S. (eds.) Constitutionalism and Legal Change in the Maldives. Palgrave Macmillan.
