The Supreme Court has rejected a petition challenging the constitutionality of the proposed USD 20 billion Rasmale’ waterfront and marina development, ruling that the case could not be submitted directly to the country’s highest court.
Ali Hussain, a lawyer and former parliamentarian, filed the constitutional petition on September 28, a week after Abu Dhabi-based real estate developer Eagle Hills signed a commercial terms agreement, or letter of intent, for the project on September 21.
The court’s registrar rejected the petition on the grounds that it did not fall within the categories of cases that can be brought directly before the Supreme Court. However, Ali Hussain has the right to appeal the registrar’s decision to the court’s council of judges within 14 days.
Under Article 11 of the Judicature Act, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes that may result in a constitutional void, disagreements between state institutions over constitutional interpretation, and constitutional matters affecting the public interest.
The petition challenges alleged plans to grant Eagle Hills 500 hectares of reclaimed land for 99 years without acquisition costs or lease payments, while also allowing the company to create leasehold interests for third parties.
Ali Hussain argued that Article 250 of the Constitution requires the transfer, lease or disposal of state property to comply with the law. He contended that no legal framework authorises the allocation of state land to a foreign party under a single 99-year lease, rendering the proposed arrangement unconstitutional.
He also cited Article 251, which limits foreign ownership or leasehold interests to 99 years. According to the petition, provisions allowing Eagle Hills to create successive third-party interests could effectively enable foreign proprietary rights to continue indefinitely, undermining the constitutional limit.
The registrar’s decision concerns whether the petition can be brought directly before the Supreme Court and does not, by itself, constitute a ruling on the constitutional merits of the allegations.
A landmark development project
The Rasmale’ project is being promoted by the Maldivian government as one of the most ambitious development initiatives in the country’s history.
The proposed integrated island destination is expected to feature international hotels and resorts, premium and branded residences, a marina, waterfront promenades, restaurants, retail outlets, and leisure and wellness facilities.
According to preliminary economic impact estimates released by the government, the development could attract more than USD 30 billion in gross foreign investment over its lifetime, including approximately USD 18 billion in net foreign investment into the Maldives.
The project is also projected to generate more than 54,000 direct and indirect jobs. At full maturity, Rasmale’ is expected to welcome more than one million visitors annually and generate over USD 2 billion in tourism revenue each year.
Despite the projected economic benefits, the proposed development has sparked political controversy and public concern, including fears that Rasmale’ could become a foothold for Zionist settlement. The government has rejected those concerns as unfounded.
The constitutional challenge adds a legal dimension to the debate surrounding the project, with questions over the proposed land arrangements and the limits of foreign leasehold rights at the centre of the dispute.
