Maldives Govt Asserts Constitutionality of Referendum on Merged Elections Amid Legal Challenge

The Attorney General's Office (AGO) has issued a definitive statement asserting that all government actions regarding the upcoming referendum on merging the presidential and parliamentary elections have been conducted in strict accordance with the Constitution and national laws. 

This declaration comes in direct response to two separate cases filed with the Supreme Court seeking to halt the vote, which is scheduled to coincide with the upcoming local council elections on 4 April.

In its detailed statement, the AGO contended that the public is being misled regarding the nature of the referendum and the legal procedures governing its execution. The office clarified that the purpose of the public vote is to determine whether the people approve of the President ratifying the Eighth Amendment to the constitution, which has already been passed by Parliament. 

This amendment is designed with two primary objectives—-to synchronise parliamentary and presidential elections and to shorten the current parliamentary term by five months—changing its commencement to 1 December—to administratively facilitate this simultaneous polling.

The statement elaborated on the constitutional necessity for the referendum, explaining that the amended provision, Article 79(a) of the Constitution, can only be ratified and implemented with the direct consent of the people, as mandated by Article 262(b) of the Constitution. This requirement, the office stated, is a fundamental feature of the nation's constitutional system for certain types of amendments.

Outlining the proper legal channel, the Attorney General's Office noted that in such instances, the President is required to sign and issue a decree specifying the full wording of the question, the reason for the public consultation, and the deadline. The office confirmed that President Dr Mohamed Muizzu has duly issued this decree to conduct the public referendum on the Eighth Amendment to the constitution, a process further detailed in the Public Referendum Act.

The statement concluded that the question posed to the public—which assesses approval for the introduction of Article 79(a)—is entirely in accordance with the legal procedure and satisfies the constitutional condition for such an amendment. 

"Any other interpretation of this would be contrary to legal and constitutional principles," the statement firmly asserted, reinforcing the government's position that the process is both valid and irrevocably lawful.