The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has submitted a constitutional case to the Supreme Court, seeking an injunction to halt all parliamentary work until such a time the no-confidence motion submitted against Parliament Speaker Mohamed Nasheed is allowed to proceed.
The no-confidence motion against Nasheed, submitted by MDP with 49 signatures, was scheduled for Sunday's parliamentary sitting. However, majlis decided that the sitting could not be held due to Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla's absence owing to illness.
In response to this, MDP submitted a constitutional case at the Supreme Court. The case seeks two outcomes.
The first is, that in the instance the Deputy Speaker is unable to attend the parliament sitting conducted on the matter on the Speaker's no-confidence, the law be interpreted to prescribe action as per Article 44 of the Parliament Regulations.
Secondly, they ask the SC to issue an order to halt all parliament work until a decision has been reached regarding the no-confidence motion against the Speaker.
Member of MDP's legal team, former Legal Counsel at the President's Office Hussain Afeef, said in a press conference held on Sunday that the Parliament Secretary General's decision - that the sitting had to be presided over by specifically the Deputy Speaker - is against both the Parliament Regulations and the Constitution. He said the matter has been submitted to the Supreme Court now to seek a correct interpretation of the laws.
MDP's legal team believes that the Secretary General's decision contravenes Article 82 of the Constitution and Article 44 of the Parliament Regulations.
Afeef noted that as per Article 44 of the Parliament Regulations, in the instance the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker are unable to preside over a sitting, the five most longest serving parliamentarians are eligible to preside over a sitting. MDP legal team maintains that the case against Nasheed should have been allowed to proceed under these conditions.
Lawyer Hussain Afeef speaking at the press conference held by MDP's legal team.-- Photo: Fayaz Moosa / Mihaaru
Afeef stated that he did not believe the laws would be designed in a manner that would bring a halt to parliament proceedings under any circumstances.
He went on to say that Article 205 (d) of the Parliament Regulations stipulate that the work of the parliament cannot proceed in the instance that a no-confidence motion against the Speaker is submitted and pending attendance.
Afeef said that as per this, no work can be conducted in Parliament before a decision is reached on the no-confidence motion currently submitted against the Speaker.
Meanwhile, the presidential inauguration ceremony is scheduled to be held on November 17. Afeef said that he hopes the SC would rule on the matter and provide a resolution before the date of the inauguration. MDP's legal team does not believe the ceremony can be allowed to proceed unless the issue of no-confidence is resolved beforehand.
Noting that the case concerns a decision made by a member of the Parliament Secretariat and not a decision made by Parliamentarians, Afeef dismissed notions of conflict to separation of powers.
Afeef stated the case had to be filed in court to seek a remedy to the possibility of the country going into a constitutional void.