The authority of Hulhumalé Magistrate Court to hear criminal cases has come under scrutiny at the High Court following the operation of the Criminal Court from Hulhumalé.
Legal Dispute Over Jurisdiction
According to the Judicature Act of the Maldives, if a superior court like the Criminal Court—or a division of it—is established on an island where a magistrate court already operates, the magistrate court loses its jurisdiction to hear cases assigned to the superior court.
This issue arose due to the establishment of certain sections of the Criminal Court in Hulhumalé to address space constraints at the court’s main building in Malé.
The matter was raised during an appeal hearing for Mohamed Wisam Sidhuqee, a defendant remanded by the Hulhumalé Court after a fatal car accident.
His defence counsel, Nooru-Salaam Abubakr, argued that the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court no longer has the jurisdiction to hear criminal cases because of the presence of the Criminal Court division in Hulhumalé.
He highlighted that the Criminal Court, even if it’s just an extension operating in Hulhumalé, takes precedence under the law.
State's Position and High Court's Questions
The state, however, disagreed, arguing that the Hulhumalé branch does not constitute a formal division of the Criminal Court.
The prosecution noted that no official decree had been issued to establish such a division, and therefore, Hulhumalé Court retains the authority to hear criminal cases.
The High Court judges questioned the legal distinction of a court division and probed both sides regarding the Judicature Act's requirements for formally designating a division.
The defence countered that the law's requirements, while not formally fulfilled, do not change the outcome, given that cases are being tried in Hulhumalé on a regular basis.
Historical Context and JSC's Decision
This debate over the court’s jurisdiction is not new.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) had previously decided to dissolve the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court, although the decision has yet to be implemented.
Additionally, the court's validity was questioned in a 2012 Supreme Court case, where the court's existence was ruled lawful.
