05/08/2023
My Opinion Regarding the Potential Supreme Court Judgment in President Yameen's Case
Certainly, this case represents a complex and sensitive issue. After hearing the matter at the Supreme Court, the following constitutes my legal analysis and opinion on the potential outcome:
Interpretation of Article 109: President Yameen's appeal revolves around the interpretation of Article 109 of the Maldives constitution, concerning his candidacy in the upcoming election. His contention is that the constitutionality of denying his candidacy based on a lower court judgment is flawed. Instead, he argues that eligibility should be determined under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by the finality of judgment at the Supreme Court level. This interpretation might align with international principles but conflicts with certain aspects of the existing Maldivian legal system.
Best Possible Outcome to Uphold Democracy: The Supreme Court's decision might lean towards a liberal interpretation of Article 109 to uphold democratic values. Such an interpretation would emphasize the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by the highest court, potentially allowing President Yameen to contest the election. Factors like the Election Commission's stance on lower court misuse and the Attorney General's reference to human rights conventions could influence this decision.
Possible Implications if President Yameen Wins the Election:
Should President Yameen be allowed to contest and subsequently win, a unique legal scenario emerges, with the existing lower court sentence still in effect.
His confinement while serving as President would be unprecedented, possibly leading to legal challenges, further constitutional interpretation, and perhaps even a pardon or legal amendments.
Resolving this scenario would necessitate a delicate balance between upholding the rule of law and honoring the democratic choice of the electorate.
Conclusion: As the guardian of the constitution, the Supreme Court possesses the authority to interpret and resolve legal disputes, even though it does not create new laws. In this intricate case, the best possible outcome appears to be an interpretation that preserves democratic principles while considering the Maldivian legal system's uniqueness. The final decision will likely hinge on the specific legal arguments presented and the Court's assessment of democratic values, justice, and public interest.
In Short: Based on the arguments heard and the legal principles at stake, it is my opinion that the most just and democratic outcome would be the granting of President Yameen's candidacy.
