Lawyer Ali Hussain files constitutional challenge against Eagle Hills’ 99-year lease

A constitutional case has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the annulment of the Commercial Terms Agreement signed between the Government of Maldives and UAE-based Eagle Hills under the Rasmale’ project.

The filing was revealed in a statement issued by lawyer and former MP Ali Hussain on his X account. The petition concerns the agreement executed on September 21 between the Ministry of Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development and Eagle Hills.

Although the government has not disclosed the full text of the agreement, public statements from both parties indicate that more than 500 hectares of reclaimed land were granted to Eagle Hills for 99 years without acquisition cost or rent. The company has also been given the right to create lease interests for third parties.

ޤާނޫނު އަސާސީ އާއި ޚިލާފަށް ބޭރުގެ ކުންފުންޏަކަށް ރަސްމާލެއިން 500 ހެކްޓަރުގެ ބިން ދިނުމަށް ސަރުކާރުން ނިންމާފައިވާތީ އެކަން ހުއްޓުވުމަށް ސުޕްރީމް ކޯޓަށް މައްސަލައެއް ހުށައަޅައިފިން pic.twitter.com/KEPVnU4KuP

— Ali Hussain (@AleeVoice) September 28, 2026

The petition argues that Article 250 of the Constitution requires the transfer, lease or disposal of state property to be carried out in accordance with the law. It states that there is no legal framework authorising the allocation of state land to a foreign party for a single 99-year lease, making the agreement directly unconstitutional.

It further argues that while Article 251 limits foreign ownership or leasehold interests to 99 years, the provision allowing Eagle Hills to create rolling third-party interests effectively opens the door to perpetual foreign proprietary rights. Therefore, the petition claims the agreement is unconstitutional and void from the outset.

An interim order has also been requested to suspend implementation of the agreement until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutional issues. The injunction seeks to prevent the creation of third-party rights that could expose the State to irreparable financial and legal burdens if the agreement is later struck down.