The Supreme Court has dismissed the case regarding the validity of the Presidential Decree implementing a State of Emergency in the Maldives. The Supreme Court noted that there were no grounds to presume that the Presidential Decree issued on February 5 was in contravention to the Constitution of Maldives.
The Claimant argued that the Article 253 of the Constitution, listing the conditions under which a State of Emergency can be declared, was not accurately invoked by the Presidential Decree. Nonetheless, the declaration did directly cite the reason for a State of Emergency being a “threat to national security.” The Claimant went on to argue that Article 254, regarding the content of the declaration, was also not followed; namely that the measures being implemented to address the emergency went beyond what is permissible in the Constitution. However, the Claimant’s argument relied on a unique interpretation of Article 254 that goes beyond the common understanding of this Article and was therefore rejected by the Court.
The Supreme Court went on to explain its reasoning for why that particular interpretation was inconsistent with its understanding of the Constitution, and stated that the Presidential Decree itself could not be deemed unconstitutional on either of the grounds presented.
As per the Presidential Decree, the state of emergency was enforced in order to protect the peace and welfare of all citizens and the country, following the events that unfolded in relation to the Supreme Court Order issued on February 1; which has resulted in; the disruption of the functions of the executive power and the State institutions vested with specific mandates under the Constitution, the infringement of national security and public interest, and if implemented, which would potentially lead to undermining the supremacy of the Constitution.