An order to prevent the implementation of any procedures that could result in sitting MPs being removed from office was sought at the Supreme Court.
The interim order was sought in connection with the constitutional case seeking to quash the anti-defection amendment of the constitution where MPs would lose their seats if they leave or are removed from the party they were originally elected with.
Former Kendhoo MP Ali Hussain, who filed the petition, said he had requested for an interim order to prevent any procedures on the removal of an MP before the Supreme Court decides on the constitutional case to be prevented.
Hussain, in this original petition seeks the Supreme Court to declare the anti-defection amendment invalid, on grounds that it violates Articles 4, 5, 8, 73 and 90 of the constitution.
He also requested the Supreme Court to rule that the amendment cannot be applied to the current MPs.
Lawyer, Mafhooz Saeed, who represents Ali Hussain in the case, said that the law cannot be applied retrospectively and that this was one of the most fundamental basics of formulating laws. He also added that at the time of getting elected, the sitting MPs would not have had any idea that anti defection rules would be imposed on them. Based on this argument, Mahfooz, on behalf of Hussain, requested that the amendment not be applied to incumbent MPs even for the interim period.
According to Mahfooz, the amendment to the constitution violates the basic principles of the constitution and contradicts the principle that state power should remain with the people. He argued that state powers are now in the hands of political party leaders, whereas the authority to dismiss or recall members should rest with the people.
This anti defection amendment has disrupted the state's system, he said, adding that Maldives has a presidential system with a constitution that is shaped accordingly. However, MPs losing their seats for switching parties is a feature of the parliamentary system, he said.
Mahfooz said the amendment also mixed up the states' powers.
The Attorney General's Office argued that the case cannot be taken up in the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court decided to continue with hearings.
As this case continued at the Supreme Court, a ruling party backed bill has been introduced to the Parliament aiming to reduce the bench of Supreme Court judges to five.