Two judges in the Maldives parliamentary impeachment case deepened the political crisis triggered by Mohamed Muizzu's efforts to change the party's constitution and deprive legislators.
The National Assembly held a super-contributing parliament voted on Wednesday to remove allegations of abuse of power, removing Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir.
The vote of 68-11 was passed, and dozens of opposition supporters who took place outside the parliament building called on Muizzu to resign and end their so-called judge intimidation.
The move comes two months after the judicial regulator was led by Muizzu's allies, suspending two judges and their colleague Justice Husnu al-Suood. At the time, a seven-member Supreme Court judge had been holding hearings to challenge the anti-sortification amendment.
Suood later resigned from the Supreme Court, accusing Muizzu and Attorney General Ahmed Usham of intimidating all Supreme Court judges in search of their verdict.
The president and his lawyers denied the charges.
"I won't interfere with the judiciary. I never do that. I don't control (judicial regulator)" Muizzu told reporters at a 14-hour press conference on May 3.
The crisis has almost stopped the Supreme Court in Maldives, with hearings suspended in all ongoing cases, including the constitutional amendment. It also raises concerns about the renewed instability of the Indian Ocean honeymoon destination, which held its first multi-party election in 2008, but has been in the midst of political turmoil since then, including coups, controversial elections, killings and imprisonment.
Azmiralda and Mahaz condemned their improvisation.
"This is an attack on the Maldives judiciary. It is not ordinary to stop the Maldives Supreme Court," Azmiralda said in a statement. "I hope that one day when this country establishes the rule of law... all officials involved in destroying the Supreme Court will be held accountable."
The case against the two judges stems from police arresting Azmiralda's husband Ismail Latheef during a police raid at a spa where men were massaged in the Maldives capital on December 4 last year.
The incident happened two weeks after Muizzu approved the anti-specific measures.
The controversial amendment stipulates that if the legislator issues a party, or resigns or is expelled from the party, the legislator loses his seat. These regulations effectively enabled Muizzu to maintain his super joy in parliament, whose party controlled 79 of the 93 seats of the chamber.
The president believes that “improving political stability” is necessary, but opponents say they will undermine the country’s checks and balances.
At the time of Rasef's arrest, a former member of the former parliament had filed a petition to the Supreme Court, challenging the legitimacy of the amendment, but the bench has not decided to file a lawsuit.
Latheef spent more than 12 hours overnight on charges of soliciting prostitutes, but was released by a judge in the criminal court. In the ruling, the judge pointed out that the masseuse treated Latheef's clothes at the time of the attack were already full of clothes and that the room they were in was unlocked.
The prosecutor's office later conducted a case against Latheef on the lack of evidence.
However, after the Supreme Court began reviewing the constitutional amendment in February, the Supervisory Judicial Services Commission (JSC) conducted separate cases against Azmiralda and Mahaz, claiming that the two judges had illegally lobbyed the lower court judges to ensure Latheef released.
JSC suggested parliament impeachment last month.
The judge denied the allegations, and Azmiralda's lawyers said the case was suspended by senior government officials "to influence the outcome of the Supreme Court's constitutional case."
Attorney General Usham told Al Jazeera that the government "clearly denies the allegations".
"There is absolutely no reason, that is, the administration has any help in the decision of the JSC (Judicial Regulatory Authority). "The suspension is based on the law, ... any suggestion with ulterior motives is firmly rejected by the government."
However, the case raised criticism from the United Nations and rights groups.
Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers, expressed serious concern last month about the lawsuit against three judges, saying they appeared to be aimed at undermining the Supreme Court’s judicial review of the anti-sweeping measures.
“The disciplinary action against three judges of the Supreme Court appears to violate the principle that judges can only be dismissed on grounds of serious misconduct or incompetence and under fair procedures that guarantee objectivity and impartiality as stipulated by the Constitution or law,” she wrote. “The pressure from suspensions, disciplinary litigation and investigations may constitute intervention in the independence of the institution.”