Supreme Court Turns Away Challenge to Eagle Hills Deal, for Now

A legal challenge to the government's agreement with Eagle Hills for the Ras Malé waterfront has been turned away by the Supreme Court registrar. The decision was procedural, not a ruling on the deal. The lawyer who filed it says he will ask a panel of Supreme Court justices to review the decision.

The case

On 28 September 2026, lawyer and former Kendhoo MP Ali Hussain filed a constitutional case at the Supreme Court. It asks the court to declare the commercial terms agreement with Eagle Hills void from the start. He argues that it breaches two articles of the constitution:

• Article 250 says state property can only be given, sold, leased or disposed of in the way the law sets out. He argues that no law allows the government to lease state land to a foreign party in a single 99-year arrangement like this one.
• Article 251 sets 99 years as the longest lease of Maldivian land to foreign parties. He argues that because Eagle Hills can create "rolling" leases for buyers that restart on every transfer, foreign parties could in effect hold land rights with no fixed end.

He also asked for an interim order suspending the agreement until a final ruling, to stop rights in the land being granted to third parties. He argues the agreement gives Eagle Hills more than 500 hectares without an acquisition cost or rent.

The articles have a history. In 2015, parliament amended Article 251 to allow foreigners investing more than US$1 billion to own land in projects mostly reclaimed from the sea. No land was sold under it, and parliament unanimously repealed the amendment in 2019, restoring the ban on foreign ownership and the 99-year limit on leases.

What he is asking for

The case asks the court to declare the agreement void ab initio, meaning void from the start, as if it had never been signed. The interim order he requested had three stated aims: to stop rights in the land being created for third parties, to avoid anything that would make a final ruling hard to enforce, and to protect the state from large losses that couldn't be undone. He argues that the agreement gives Eagle Hills more than 500 hectares of reclaimed land for 99 years with no acquisition cost or rent, and lets it create continuing lease interests for buyers.

Why it was turned away

On Sunday 11 October, the Supreme Court registrar declined to register the case. The registrar found that it didn't fall within the kinds of case that can be filed directly with the Supreme Court as a court of first instance under Article 11 of the Courts Act. Those include constitutional gaps, disputes between state institutions over the constitution, and constitutional matters of public interest.

The decision concerns registration only. The court hasn't heard the case or ruled on whether the agreement is constitutional.

What happens next

Ali Hussain has 14 days to ask a panel of Supreme Court justices to review the registrar's decision, which gives him until 25 October 2026. He told the newspaper Dhauru that he expected to submit the request within about a week. If the panel agrees, the case could be registered and heard. If it doesn't, the case could still be brought another way, for example in a lower court first.

Why the case matters

At the heart of the case is a question the government and its critics answer very differently. Is a 99-year lease that starts again on every sale or inheritance a lease, or a sale in all but name? Eagle Hills says each buyer gets a fresh lease of up to 99 years whenever a property changes hands. The government says that's lawful because every transfer needs its approval, and that no land is being sold. After the criticism, Eagle Hills revised its website to say transfers are subject to government approval and registration.

The case also raises the question of which law the deal falls under. Ali Hussain argues there is no legal framework for this kind of lease. The Attorney General has said a real estate law will follow. One analyst expects parliament to consider amendments on land, foreign ownership and residency. A November 2025 amendment to the Special Economic Zones Act already created "sustainable township" status, with a property transfer tax of up to 4%.

Other challenges to the deal

• A corruption complaint. Ali Hussain and a member of the opposition MDP have also lodged a complaint about the deal with the Anti-Corruption Commission.
• Parliament. On 5 October, an MDP emergency motion demanding publication of the full agreement was accepted for debate with the support of 53 MPs, including some from the ruling party.
• Questions to the minister. In written answers to an MP, Housing Minister Abdulla Muththalib said the agreement was signed under the government's procedure for private sector initiated proposals (PSIP), under the State Finance Regulation. He said its main terms had been made public, and that the investment schedule and what happens if the project isn't finished will be set out in the main agreement.

Timeline

• 21 September 2026: the commercial terms agreement with Eagle Hills is signed.
• 26 September: the President defends the deal in a television interview.
• 28 September: Ali Hussain files his constitutional case at the Supreme Court.
• 5 October: Parliament accepts an MDP emergency motion on publishing the agreement.
• 11 October: the Supreme Court registrar declines to register the case.
• 15 October: the Housing Minister answers an MP's written questions on the deal.
• 25 October: deadline to ask a panel of justices to review the registrar's decision.

What supporters of the deal say

The government argues the deal is good for the country. It says the state will receive 10% of first-sale revenue, a 4% fee on every transfer and tourism GST. It projects more than US$11 billion in state revenue, more than 54,000 jobs and over a million visitors a year at maturity, and says it is giving no loans, sovereign guarantees or tax breaks. It also points to the 5,000 homes Eagle Hills is to build in Hulhumalé, about US$500 million, as an early benefit for Maldivian families.

The government's position

The government says no land is being sold. Homes would be leased, every transfer needs its approval, and the state gives no loans, guarantees or tax breaks. Attorney General Ahmed Usham has said the government won't act against the constitution, and that further agreements and legislation are needed before the project goes ahead.

For the full terms and the arguments on both sides, read our Eagle Hills deal explainer. We'll update this story when the court decides on the review.