High Court has commenced hearings for the case submitted by the Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) asking to invalidate certain clauses within the Parliament Privileges Act.
Presenting the case to the court, Ismail Wisham from the local law firm Sood Anwar and Co. asked the court to invalidate Articles 17 (a), 18 (a) and 18 (b) of the Parliament Privileges Act on the basis that they contradict with Article 28 and Article 53 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of the press and protection of information sources, and the right of all citizens to attain and retain assistance of legal counsel.
Following Wisham’s opening statement, the State attorney called for a point of procedure and said that the case from MJA deals with Articles 17 and 18 of the Parliament Privileges Act, and the State is currently asked the Supreme Court to deliberate on the same two articles.
The State attorney asked the court to declare that the court is unable to proceed with the case, as the hearings for the Supreme Court case are currently underway.
The High Court bench of judges then asked the State if the case being contested Supreme Court had the same basis as case presented by MJA.
The State attorney answered that the State had asked the Supreme Court to declare that the powers granted in the Articles were not granted to the Parliament as absolute powers, and that they must be read along with the other rights and freedoms in granted in the Constitution.
The attorney said this request stems from their understand that the Articles in the Parliament Privileges Act cannot be invalidated as they have been phrase in the same way that the corresponding clauses in the Constitution.
State has asked the Supreme Court make a ruling regarding three Articles in the Parliament Privileges Act.
The articles include Article 11, which states that a member of the parliament shall not be summoned by a judicial court of an investigative body in such a way that it might bar the work of the Parliament, Article 16, which makes it mandatory for the State to facilitate for a parliament member to attend Parliament sessions and committee meetings if he serving a sentence less than 1 year in duration, and Article 18 (b) which states that any person who does not answer queries after being summoned by a parliament committee would be deemed to have disobeyed the orders of the parliament, and thus liable for criminal prosecution.
Concluding today’s hearing, the chair of the bench of judges, Judge Abdul Raoof Ibrahim said that the court will continue the case after seeking the advice of the Supreme Court.