Republic of Maldives (Maldives).

Asia (South-central Asia).

Dhivehi.

324,000 (U.N., 2012).

Abolitionist de facto.

Amnesty International recently reported that the last execution took place in 1954, but other sources indicate the last execution was in 1952 or 1953.

1954.

Amnesty International recently reported that the last execution took place in 1954, but other sources indicate the last execution was in 1952 or 1953.

The last executed individual, Hakim Didi, was found guilty of conspiracy to murder the president using black magic and was executed by firing squad.

Hanging.

In June 2016 the Maldives government added hanging as a method of execution. This method of execution was added after the government failed to source chemicals for lethal injections.

Lethal Injection.

Pursuant to a 2014 regulation entitled “Regulation on Investigation & Execution of Sentence for Willful Murder” implementing the death penalty in intentional homicide and premeditated murder cases after a six-decade-old death-penalty moratorium, execution facilities are being constructed and reports indicate that the penalty will most likely be carried out by lethal injection. On January 23, 2014, Home Minister Umar Naseer issued an order to the Maldives’ Correctional Services requiring the use of lethal injection for executions, which are to be held at Maafushi prison.

Comments.

Pursuant to a 2014 regulation entitled “Regulation on Investigation & Execution of Sentence for Willful Murder” implementing the death penalty in intentional homicide and premeditated murder cases after a six-decade-old death-penalty moratorium, execution facilities are being constructed and reports indicate that the penalty will most likely be carried out by lethal injection. On January 23, 2014, Home Minister Umar Naseer issued an order to the Maldives’ Correctional Services requiring the use of lethal injection for executions, which are to be held at Maafushi prison.

At the end of 2020, 19 people were known to be on death row.

(This question was last updated on December 1, 2021.).

No. Former President Mohamed Nasheed publicly stated that he was opposed to the death penalty and believed it should not be a punishment in the penal code. Specifically, he stated his doubts that the Maldivian justice system was up to the task of assuring sufficient safeguards in the application of the death penalty. As such, there was an unofficial moratorium on executions and it was common practice for the President to commute death sentences to life imprisonment through clemency. In 2011, the Maldives responded to U.N. Human Rights Council recommendations on the death penalty by noting that it was not ready to abolish the death penalty, but that it was committed to maintaining its moratorium.

Current President Abdulla Yameen, however, called for death penalty implementation “to save Maldivian society from murders that have become too commonplace” and expressed his belief that “murder has to be punished with murder.” A 2014 regulation implemented procedures for putting the death penalty into practice in willful homicide and premeditated murder cases. The regulation provides that the death penalty is appropriate in cases of intentional homicide or premeditated murder when delivered or affirmed by the Supreme Court. In accordance with Shariah principles, a victim’s family will be given an opportunity to pardon the convict. This regulation will have an immediate impact on the way in which the Maldives practices the death penalty: regulatory steps codifying the means by which execution can be obtained could encourage its use and preference over imprisonment.

The Constitution provides: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not be deprived thereof to any extent except pursuant to a law made in accordance with Article 16 of this Constitution.” Article 16 explains that rights must be protected in accordance with what is proper in a “free and democratic society” and under Shariah law, and provides that the limitation of any right must pass a proportionality test with an emphasis on the importance of the right. The onus of demonstrating that it is necessary to infringe a right to protect a tenet of Islam or some other state purpose is on the State (or the individual asserting that there should be a limitation). Article 54 prohibits “cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, or to torture.”

Murder.

A regulation entitled Regulation on Investigation & Execution of Sentence for Willful Murder was adopted on April 27, 2014 and provides for the use of the death penalty in cases of intentional homicide and premeditated murder. Reports indicate that the Regulation was formulated under the Police Act and the Clemency Act. We were unable to locate an English translation of the Regulation.

In essence, the Regulation implements the death penalty for intentional homicide or premeditated murder when the Supreme Court issues or affirms the sentence. The Regulation allows for the traditional Shariah mediation process in which victim’s heirs are asked to choose between a retributive death sentence (qisas) or pardoning the convict, in which case they can elect to receive compensation (diyyah). With respect to Shariah death penalty practices, a 2010 court decision explained that the Shariah punishment for murder is death, and the decision of a single heir to accept diyyah in lieu of qisas will prevent an execution. The Maldives is influenced by the Shafi’i school of Sunni Islam (although not strictly), under which the death penalty (qisas) for murder applies only if the offender intended to kill the victim and used some means likely to cause that result, and the victim’s heirs have the power to pardon the offender.

Before the 2014 regulation, sources did not agree on the appropriate punishment for murder. Section 88(d) of the Penal Code prescribes the Shariah punishment where a public servant fails to obey a lawful order and such failure results in death of a person. Courts used section 88(d) to apply the death penalty against security officers who, due to abuse of a person in custody, caused his death—which might align with the statutory language. But courts also pronounced death sentences under this provision of the Code for individuals with no public duty that were found guilty of murder. In 2010, one court stated that under section 88(d) a murderer “shall be executed” unless one of the victim’s heirs gives up the right of qisas. In another case, a trial judge summoned heirs of the victim and offered them a choice between accepting blood money or qisas and, when the heirs chose the latter, the convicts were immediately sentenced to death. The pronouncement of 13 additional death sentences in 2013, before the enactment of the 2014 regulation, lends further support to the conclusion that courts in the Maldives often interpreted section 88(d) of the Penal Code to mean murder was punishable by death in spite of the Code’s narrow language.

The Maldives commissioned a draft Penal Code in 2004 that was completed in 2006. It has been pending in Parliament for many years. The draft code purports to “find principled common ground” between the Maldives Shariah practices and international norms with respect to the death penalty and makes the death sentence available only for purposeful killings.

Terrorism-Related Offenses Resulting in Death.

Under section 6(a) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1990, terrorism resulting in death is punishable by death.

Treason.

Some treasonable offenses are punishable by death, including causing harm to the President in contravention of Shariah or law or committing acts to the detriment of the government, its sovereignty or territory.

Comments.

The Republic of Maldives operates on codified and Shariah law, and the Penal Code supports Shariah penalties not explicitly defined in the Code. Under Shariah law, the death penalty is the punishment of a murderer and he is to be killed in retaliation (qisas) unless the victim’s next of kin pardons him. However, the Maldives did not always construe Shariah law to apply an expansive death penalty, and the President typically commuted death sentences to life imprisonment.

Although the death penalty for murder can be applied in a mandatory fashion under Shariah, the death penalty is passed at the discretion of the courts in the Maldives. The heirs of the victim may be sought for a determination of whether or not they wish for the death penalty, but the Supreme Court is vested with final authority on issuing the sentence. The 2014 Regulation on Investigation & Execution of Sentence for Willful Murder does not strip the courts of their discretion in issuing a death sentence in willful murder cases, but instead imposes a procedural scheme for the implementation of that sentence.

We did not find any information on whether there is a mandatory death penalty for offenses other than intentional homicide and premeditated murder.

Comments.

None, we believe.

There is no mandatory death penalty for murder. We did not find any specific information on whether there is a mandatory death penalty for offenses other than intentional homicide and premeditated murder, but we believe it likely that the courts exercise the same sentencing discretion."

Individuals Below Age 18 at Time of Crime.

The Maldives is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which prohibit the execution of individuals for offenses committed while below age 18. Courts are constitutionally required to consider the treaties to which the Maldives is party.

Nevertheless, the Penal Code has been applied as allowing the application of the death penalty for crimes committed when below the age of 18. Reporting on death sentences and executions in 2013, Amnesty International expressed concern that individuals under 18 years of age remained in detention under sentence of death in the Maldives. In 2013, two juveniles were sentenced to death in relation to a murder committed while they were under age 18.

Moreover, the 2014 Regulation on Investigation & Execution of Sentence for Willful Murder does not exempt minors convicted of intentional homicide or premeditated murder from execution. In May 2014, after the implementation of the regulation, a 16-year-old was charged with a gang-related murder. Two other minors—one 16 and one 14—were charged with lesser offences related to the crime. One report indicates that the 16-year-old charged with murder was convicted, but but whether this juvenile will be sentenced to death remains unknown.

The traditional rule under Shariah law is that a child’s adulthood is influenced by the concept of maturity, marked by puberty. The age of criminal responsibility in the Maldives is typically 10, but certain hadd offenses have an age of responsibility of 7. Accordingly, the 2014 regulation means children as young as 7 might be sentenced to death and have that sentence carried out once they reach 18 years of age.

Pregnant Women.

In accordance with the 2014 Regulation on Investigation & Execution of Sentence for Willful Murder, a death penalty imposed on a pregnant woman can be delayed until she gives birth and the child is two years old.

With respect to crimes not covered by the 2014 regulation (those other than intentional homicide and premeditated murder) the law limiting the right to life is required to comply with Shariah principles. The execution of pregnant women is anathema to the rights of the child set forth in the Quran and Sunna, although the woman may be sentenced to death.

Women With Small Children.

In accordance with the 2014 Regulation on Investigation & Execution of Sentence for Willful Murder, a death penalty imposed on a pregnant woman can be delayed until she gives birth and the child is two years old.

With respect to crimes not covered by the 2014 regulation (those other than intentional homicide and premeditated murder) the law limiting the right to life is required to comply with Shariah principles. The execution of nursing women is anathema to the rights of the child (until the child is 2 years old) set forth in the Quran and Sunna, although the woman may be sentenced to death.

Mentally Ill.

Under the Penal Code of 1968, no criminal liability attaches to an offense committed “by a person who at the time of doing it is by reason of being in a certain state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it may be contrary to law.” The provision does not apply “to a person who creates that state of mind on his own volition or with his consent.”

Under Shariah law, insane individuals might have more expansive protection than explicitly laid out in the Code, including a protection against being executed while insane.

Comments.

Intellectually disabled persons might have some protection under Shariah law, especially if they are not competent to stand trial or give a free confession. Law limiting the right to life is required to comply with Shariah principles.

Comments.

None. There have been no executions since the early 1950s. (Amnesty International recently reported that the last execution took place in 1954, but other sources indicate the last execution was in 1952 or 1953.

In 2013, 2 teenagers were sentenced to death by the Juvenile Court for a murder they committed when they were under age 18. Executing these individuals would be a violation of the Maldives’ international treaty obligations not to carry out capital punishment on juveniles.

In November of 2010, Mohamed Nabeel was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in a case that might involve a questionable application of section 88(d) of the Penal Code, which appears to apply when a public servant’s breach of duty or lawfulness results in death but was applied here as permitting the death penalty for murder generally.

Yes. Near the end of the Chapter on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution provides: “When interpreting and applying the rights and freedoms contained within this Chapter, a court or tribunal shall promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, and shall consider international treaties to which the Maldives is a party.” Later, Chapter VII of the Constitution creates a Human Rights Commission charged with monitoring, promoting and protecting human rights.

In 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Committee was concerned that the death penalty had not been abolished and that a proposed amendment to the Clemency Act would prevent the President from granting clemency as provided for in the Constitution. The proposed amendment to Clemency Act has not been passed into law, but it is unclear whether the 2014 Regulation on Investigation & Execution of Sentence for Willful Murder derogates presidential clemency power in intentional homicide and premeditated murder cases where the death sentence is passed or affirmed by the Supreme Court.

At the Maldives’ 2010 Universal Periodic Review, the UN Human Rights Council noted that the country had made significant strides in its effort to reform its justice system, including the ratification of a new Constitution in 2008. The Maldives rejected recommendations that it abolish the death penalty and accede to the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, but noted its commitment to maintaining a moratorium on the death penalty. The Maldives accepted the recommendation that its new Penal Code accord with international human rights standards but refused to abolish corporal punishment. The 2014 regulation implementing the death penalty directly undercuts the stance articulated by the Maldives in these responses.

The Maldives does not have an enacted Code of Criminal Procedure, but it commissioned and obtained a draft code that was completed in 2005. The draft code, although supplying a general right to counsel, does not appear to require appointment of free legal counsel for indigent defendants. In the absence of a code, reports indicate that while courts generally appoint a lawyer in serious criminal cases in which the accused cannot afford one, the Maldivian police interfere extensively with the right to representation. Convictions are reportedly often obtained on the basis of tortured confessions obtained during interrogations where the police prevented the accused from having an attorney present. Many reported instances involve political offenses, foreign language speakers, or politically motivated charges. (Some of the offenses discussed were serious, but not all were capital.).

The Maldives does not have an enacted Code of Criminal Procedure, but it commissioned and obtained a draft code that was completed in 2005. The draft code, although supplying a general right to counsel, does not appear to require appointment of free legal counsel for indigent defendants. In the absence of a code, reports indicate that a Maldivian court may appoint a lawyer in a serious criminal case in which the accused cannot afford one.

The Maldives may suffer from a lack of criminal defense attorneys. In an older report from 2005, the International Commission of Jurists reported that only 10 attorneys (one quarter of private practitioners) regularly practiced criminal law, and the 110 non-private practitioners were legal officers in the government. The report did not specify whether any of the public officers performed duties as defense attorneys.Moreover, there is reportedly a lack of quality legal education to create new lawyers. The mission of the Bar Association, formed in April 2013, is to improve the country’s standard of legal education and address other problems facing legal practitioners in the Maldives. The Association is not a formal statutory body, nor does it appear that the Bar Association is the body tasked with regulating admission into the profession or supplying and enforcing its codes of conduct and ethics.

In addition, there are concerns regarding the independence of the legal profession. The Attorney General’s Office acts as a regulatory body and issues licenses to practice. In the Office’s latest strategic plan, priority actions include the development of a Legal Profession Bill and Code of Conduct for Lawyers. The 2013 report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers noted that it is contrary to principles enshrined in the role of lawyers that licenses to practice law and disciplinary measure are in the control of the executive—in this case, the Attorney General’s Office.

There is a constitutional right to appeal all civil and criminal matters, therefore any individual who has been convicted of a crime has the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. There are currently no criminal procedure rules in force. There are, however, a set of draft criminal procedure rules, which describe the potential future appellate process. Under the draft code, an appeal will only be granted for legal error; the High Court will defer to trial courts on all findings of fact, save when faced with clearly erroneous findings. A defendant must file a notice of appeal with the trial court within 10 days of the original conviction. The trial court has discretion to determine whether a defendant will be held in prison pending appeal.

Article 21 of the Clemency Act of 2010 states: “Even if stated otherwise in this act, if the Supreme Court issues a death sentence, or a lower court or High Court issues a death sentence and if the Supreme Court upholds that sentence, the President has the authority to relieve the sentence into a life imprisonment, after consideration of either the state of the guilty, the legal principles behind the issue, consensus of the state or the values of humanity. But once such a sentence is being relieved to a life imprisonment, the guilty shall not be eligible for pardon, under any clause of this act.”

Three amendments to the Act proposing to limit the presidential clemency power have been introduced in Parliament. These amendments, proposed throughout 2011 and 2013, sought to require the President to enforce a death sentence if issued by the Supreme Court or issued by a lower court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. At present, none of the amendments have been passed into law. But the President’s clemency power, which was traditionally used to commute death sentences in the Maldives before 2010, appears to have fallen out of favor since that time.

In 2012, private individuals asked the High Court to decide whether the President’s power to grant clemency was unconstitutional. Under the Constitution, the victim’s heirs have the power to pardon convicts and the death penalty is only enforced with unanimous consent of all heirs. Therefore, individuals argued that the President’s power to grant clemency defies Shariah law and the Constitution by allowing the President to decide the matter rather than the heirs and should be void as a consequence of such violation. We were unable to find the High Court’s decision on that constitutional challenge.

Under the 2014 Regulation on Investigation & Execution of Sentence for Willful Murder, once the Supreme Court issues a death sentence or affirms a lower court’s issuance of a death sentence in a premeditated murder or intentional homicide case, the President must be notified that all procedures of the regulation have been properly followed. The Regulation establishes a committee to assure that all procedures for proper implementation of the death penalty have been adhered to. Where such a finding is made, the President has 3 days to respond to notification with an execution order. It is unclear whether the President maintains his clemency power under the regulation or whether he can refuse to issue an execution order. Within 7 days of receiving the President’s execution order, the Maldives Correctional Service must carry out the execution. Shariah principles still apply through a mediation process: where a single member of the family refuses the penalty, the execution will not be carried out. If the 2014 regulation does strip the President’s power to grant clemency and commute an individual’s death sentence, the Maldives is violating its obligations as a party to the ICCPR (article 6(4) mandates the right to clemency for death-sentenced prisoners).

No. There are no jury trials in the Republic of Maldives.

The criminal justice system is inconsistent in its operation. The absence of any criminal procedure legislation, or even of any published court rules regarding procedural regulations, trial procedures, or evidentiary rules, is highly problematic. In May 2013, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers stated that “[t]he judiciary needs to be given adequate tools, in line with the principles enshrined in the Constitution, to function properly and with legal certainty.”

The criminal justice system is very decentralized in one aspect – trial courts are based in each inhabited island, and there is no “single central judicial authority” to regulate the application of law or judicial conduct. Meanwhile, it is centralized in another aspect—as the courts have no cohesion as an independent body of government, they are subject to executive control, and judges may seek the advice of an executive judicial committee and be subject to removal for making independent determinations.

The country has been criticized for human rights violations embedded in its criminal justice system. As the country operates on Shariah law, some Shariah penalties are maintained. One of those is flogging. Most of the flogging in the Maldives is done as a punishment for extramarital sex, and the majority of those flogged are women.

The police and military forces of the Maldives faced international scrutiny for their violent opposition to peaceful demonstrators in 2012. In the wake of the disputed resignation of President Mohamen Nasheed, Nasheed’s supporters who had taken to the streets to peacefully protest were subject to sustained and unnecessary beatings, arbitrary detention, and torture by police and military forces. One report indicates that confessions in the Maldives are almost always obtained through coercive methods including torture.

There are 6 prison establishments in the Maldives. We do not know where death row prisoners are held. However, the recent regulation for implementation of executions indicates that death sentences will be carried out at Maafushi, the country’s largest prison.

In 2013, Maafushi prisoners petitioned the President, alleging that they were deprived of constitutional rights and rights conveyed by international treaties the Maldives is a party to as a result of poor prison conditions. They alleged that their cells were so small they could not kneel to pray and that they were deprived of healthy food, clean water, and medical treatment. It is unclear whether prisoners under sentence of death endure similar conditions or whether they are kept in different conditions or facilities.

In 2012, a Maldivian blogger jailed for his participation in a silent protest in the Maldives described the poor prison conditions he endured during his 24-day imprisonment in Male prison. He was locked in a small room for 3 weeks with 11 other individuals. There was no airflow or ventilation. There was no exercise, and prisoners were not allowed outside of the cell unless it was to use the toilet, which did not flush. There was no medical treatment. There was no bedding and prisoners were unable to stretch out and sleep properly due to the tight quarters.

In January 2009, detainees in Maafushi prison reportedly went on a hunger strike due to the government''s failure to deliver on promises made in December 2008 to address overcrowding, poor ventilation and lighting, inadequate medical treatment, and to institute rehabilitation and parole programs for prisoners.

There are no known foreign nationals currently under sentence of death.

No known foreign nationals are under sentence of death.

At the end of 2020, one woman was known to be on death row.

(This question was updated on November 30, 2021.).

Yes. In 2013, the Juvenile Court convicted two minors of murder and sentenced them to death. They have now reached age 18. In May 2014, after the implementation of the Regulation on Investigation & Execution of Sentence for Willful Murder, a 16-year-old was charged with a gang-related murder. Two other minors—one 16 and one 14—were charged with lesser offences related to the crime. One report indicates that the 16-year-old charged with murder was convicted, but whether this juvenile will be sentenced to death remains unknown.

It is possible that there are other individuals under the sentence of death who were under age 18 at the time of the offense.

We were unable to ascertain the ethnic composition of death row.

The death penalty has not been carried out in the Maldives since the early 1950s (Amnesty International recently reported that the last execution took place in 1954, but other sources indicate the last execution was in 1952 or 1953 ), but accelerating crime rates, changing public opinion, and new leadership have resulted in the death penalty’s resurgence. According to President Yameen, the Maldives formulated its 2014 Regulation on Investigation & Execution of Sentence for Willful Murder implementing capital punishment to stop the “slaughter of innocent citizens.” The regulation provides that the Supreme Court can impose a death sentence upon individuals convicted of intentional homicide and premeditated murder. This sentence can be tempered by a mediation process in which any of the victim’s heirs can elect a pardon. The regulation, however, does not create a mandatory death penalty regime for murder. The Supreme Court is vested with final authority on issuing the death sentence and can pronounce a lesser punishment regardless of the wishes of the family.

With respect to clemency, it is unclear whether the President’s power to grant clemency is derogated in cases covered by the 2014 regulation. If the 2014 regulation does strip the President’s power to grant clemency and commute an individual’s death sentence, the Maldives is violating its obligations as a party to the ICCPR (article 6(4) mandates the right to clemency for death-sentenced prisoners).

During 2011 and 2012, 3 proposals seeking to amend the Clemency Act of 2010 were brought in Parliament. Each of these amendments would remove the President’s power to grant clemency if a death sentence for any offense were issued or affirmed by the Supreme Court. To date, none of these amendments have been passed, and we can confirm the presidential power to commute a death sentence to a sentence of life remains intact in cases other than willful homicide and premeditated murder.

Recent practices indicate that the Maldives does not hesitate to seek the death penalty for juveniles. In 2013, two juveniles were sentenced to death in relation to a murder committed while they were under age 18. In May 2014, after the implementation of the regulation enabling the death penalty in willful homicide and premeditated murder cases, a 16-year-old was charged with a gang-related murder. One report indicates that the 16-year-old charged with murder was convicted, but whether this juvenile will be sentenced to death remains unknown.

In 2011, the Maldives responded to U.N. Human Rights Council recommendations on the death penalty by noting that it was not ready to abolish the death penalty, but that it was committed to maintaining its moratorium. The 2014 expedited system for the implementation of the death penalty in willful homicide and premeditated murder cases significantly changes the death penalty landscape in the Maldives and evidences a drastic shift from the Maldives’ asserted stance in 2011.

None.

Human Rights Commission of the Maldives
Uthuru Vehi, 5th Floor,
Keneree Magu,
Male’, Republic of Maldives
Tel: + 960 3336539 / + 960 3344977 / +960 3003100
Fax: + 960 3338658
Toll Free Number: 1424
info@hrcm.org.mv.

The website of the Supreme Court includes a section on judicial decisions, available in Dhivehi, the national language of the Maldives, at http://www.supremecourt.gov.mv. The links on the English-language version of the website were not functioning as of May 2014 (http://www.supremecourt.gov.mv/eng/?decision=eng).

Judicial decisions may also be available on the High Court’s website, available at http://www.highcourt.gov.mv/dhi/index.php#. Unfortunately, the translation link was down as of May 2014.

Most helpful are Prof. Paul H. Robinson’s varied reports on the subject of criminal justice reform, all of which are available at http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/phrobins/.

The Republic of Maldives is currently in the process of attempting to enact dramatic criminal justice reforms. It is likely that, in the coming years, there will be significant changes in its system, which should be closely observed. As of May 2014, the draft penal code including sentencing guidelines and draft criminal procedural code had not been passed by Parliament.