High Court Judge Abdul Rauf Ibrahim has resigned from his position.
In a tweet, High Court of the Maldives stated Judge Abdul Rauf submitted his resignation on May 31 and thanked him for 11 years of service. Rauf was appointed to the High Court in 2011. He has achieved a Bachelor in Law at International Islamic University Malaysia.
The resignation comes after the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) requested the Parliament of the Maldives to dismiss High Court judges Abdul Rauf and Abdulla Hameed. JSC made the decision after investigating a complaint accusing the two judges of violating Article 152 of the Constitution of the Maldives by accepting government-issued flats at special prices after agreeing to issue a particular verdict in a court case. The commission stated the government had given the flats directly to the judges without any involvement from the Parliament and that it violates Article 152, which states that Judges are to be paid a salary and allowances in keeping with the stature of their office as determined by the Parliament.
JSC highlighted that the Parliament has not made special arrangements for the accommodation of judges and that the flats were not given in accordance with any established rules or regulations. Therefore, it stated that Judge Abdul Rauf and Judge Abdulla Hameed had violated the Constitution by accepting the flats and that they have also violated the code of conduct of judges by taking actions that undermine the public’s trust in the judiciary. Due to these reasons, JSC stated it has made the decision to request the dismissal of both judges.
The Parliamentary Committee on Judicial Services has concluded that JSC had not completed the necessary procedures in its decision to dismiss the judges and did not provide them the opportunity to respond to its final report. In response, JSC stated that it had completed all necessary procedures and the regulations dictate that the commission is only allowed to provide judges with the opportunity to respond to the prior investigative report and not the final report. As such, it stated that the judges have responded to the investigative report during a meeting held before a decision was made on the case.