Inspector Ahmed Shiyam reinstated after High Court ruling

Maldives Police Service has since reinstated Shiyam in compliance with the High Court's order. He resumed duties today and described his return to the force as an honour.

Featured Image

Shiyam; he has rejoined the police force after 12 years

Malika Shahid

2026-06-03 17:07:53

Inspector of Police Ahmed Shiyam has been reinstated to the Maldives Police Service, 12 years after his dismissal from the force.

Shiyam was removed from his post in May 2014 over allegations that he abused his authority while serving as commander of the North Police Division.

The Civil Court had previously ruled that although his dismissal was unlawful, it could not order his reinstatement.

However, the High Court overturned that decision last month, ordering that Shiyam be returned to service and compensated with salary and allowances from the date of his dismissal until his reinstatement.

Maldives Police Service has since reinstated Shiyam in compliance with the High Court's order. He resumed duties today and described his return to the force as an honour.

Speaking after his reinstatement, Shiyam said the police service and wearing the police uniform had been among the most important parts of his life.

Despite the High Court's ruling, Shiyam has not yet received the salary and allowances awarded for the period he was out of service. The state has appealed that part of the judgment to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court has previously ruled that employees who are reinstated after wrongful dismissal are entitled to a maximum of six months' salary and allowances. In cases where reinstatement is not granted, compensation is capped at one year's salary.

In its ruling, the High Court said the state bore the burden of proving there were valid grounds for Shiyam’s dismissal.

The court also referred to previous Supreme Court decisions stating that, in police employment cases, courts must examine whether disciplinary boards conducted adequate investigations and whether sufficient evidence was available to support disciplinary action.  

According to the High Court judgment, the state had not presented evidence meeting that standard.