In the practice of law, procedural rules are fundamental to ensuring fairness and integrity in the administration of justice. However, some regulations, despite being well-intentioned, can create unnecessary obstacles that impede access to legal representation. A clear example of this is found in the procedural requirements governing powers of attorney for legal representation in the Maldivian courts.
Under Article 32(h)(7) of the Civil Procedure Regulation of the Civil Court, Article 24(h)(7) of the Civil Procedure Regulation of the High Court, and Article 22(h)(7) of the Civil Procedure Regulation of the Supreme Court, a power of attorney submitted for the purpose of appointing legal counsel must either:
- Be signed in the presence of two witnesses, each of whom must provide their permanent address, national ID card number, age, fingerprint, and signature; or
- Be notarized by a public notary.
While these measures may have been introduced to ensure the authenticity of documents and prevent fraudulent representation, the current requirements are excessive, outdated, and inconsistent with both the modern legal framework of the Maldives and international best practices.
Why the Regulation Is Problematic
There are several issues with the existing regulation:
1. It Undermines the Role of Licensed Lawyers
Under the Legal Professions Act, lawyers in the Maldives are admitted to the profession by taking an oath and are bound by strict ethical and legal responsibilities. These include duties to act with integrity, maintain client confidentiality, and represent clients faithfully. By requiring that every power of attorney be further authenticated by two witnesses or a notary, the regulation implicitly questions the professionalism and accountability of licensed lawyers.
2. It Creates Practical Barriers for Clients
For clients—especially those living abroad, in remote islands, or with urgent legal matters—finding two qualified witnesses or accessing notarial services can be impractical or impossible. This is particularly burdensome in time-sensitive civil disputes or when legal representation must be arranged quickly.
3. It Is Outdated and Out of Step with Global Norms
Most developed jurisdictions do not require such rigorous authentication for powers of attorney when appointing legal counsel. Fingerprints, for instance, are typically only required if the signatory is illiterate or physically unable to sign. By maintaining outdated formalities, the current regulations place the Maldives at odds with the streamlined procedures adopted in more advanced legal systems.
It is time for the judiciary to revisit these provisions across all three levels of court. A modern, balanced approach would be to:
- Accept a signed and dated power of attorney issued by a client and submitted by a licensed lawyer as sufficient for representation;
- Require additional authentication only where specific concerns exist, such as suspicion of fraud or in contested matters involving representation rights.
Such a revision would preserve the courts’ ability to verify documents when needed while removing unnecessary procedural hurdles for the vast majority of straightforward cases.
As the Maldivian legal system continues to evolve, its procedural framework must do the same. The current power of attorney requirements—replicated across the Civil, High, and Supreme Courts—should be revised to reflect the trust placed in licensed lawyers and the needs of clients in a modern legal environment. Reforming these provisions would enhance access to justice, align Maldives with international norms, and reinforce confidence in the professionalism of the legal community.