The first hearing was lengthy and allowed both parties to present their sides.
Constitutional amendments enacted within proper procedure cannot be heard at any court, the Attorney General's Office said at the Supreme Court on Monday.
The remarks were made during the first Supreme Court hearing in the case submitted by former Kendhoo MP and lawyer, Ali Hussain, who seeks to quash the constitutional amendment passed by the parliament and ratified by President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu within a 24 hour period last year.
According to the amendment, MPs who leave or are removed from the political party they were elected with would lose their seat as parliamentarians. This also applies to MPs who get elected as independent members and choose to join parties later on.
Speaking on the matter today, Attorney General's Office was represented by Uza. Fathimath Haleem who raised a procedural objection against the court proceeding with the case.
She went on to say that while Ali Hussain submitted the petition as a constitutional issue claiming that the sixth amendment to the constitution itself was unconstitutional, the matter did not fall within the realm of a constitutional issue.
According to the constitution, a constitutional issue is any matter involving an article or part of an article of the constitution or any part of a law or rule or regulation or an order issued by a public body or an act or decision taken by an employee of such body.
Uza. Fathimath said that although the bills to amend the constitution are described as laws, they cannot be given the status of laws. She added that such amendments are passed under a special procedure and that it would result in major procedural issues if they are given the status of laws.
The Attorney General's Office expressed that the office is of the belief that amendments to the constitution are part of the constitution, and said it should be interpreted as such.
Judge Aisha Shujune then asked which courts would be able to hear such cases in that case, to which Uza. Fathimath said that she does not believe constitutional amendments enacted within proper procedures cannot be heard at any court.
She further said that the Attorney General's Office believes that the Supreme Court could only hear constitutional cases relating to the interpretation of the constitution, but not thematic issues related to a constitutional amendment itself.
Ali Hussain's lawyer Mahfooz Saeed said the constitution states that the constitution can only be amended by a law passed for that purpose, and that the term "law" is used there for a reason.
He said there was nothing in the constitution that would make the amendments different from other laws.
Mahfooz also said if an amendment to the constitution contradicts another article, the Supreme Court has the authority to declare it to that extent and decide on such cases. However, the Supreme Court would not be able to dictate how the article should be formulated next, he said.
- If the case involves legal grounds that could lead to a constitutional vacuum or one that could oust the state from the constitutional system
- If the dispute is between two institutions of the state or between two powers regarding the interpretation of the constitution
- The issue is a constitutional issue related to the public interest of the country.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Ali Hussain sought to declare the amendment to the Constitution as invalid. He also said that the amendment violates Articles 4, 5 and 8 of the constitution and contradicts with Articles 73 and 90 as well.
He also seeks the court to declare that the amendment does not apply to the incumbent MPs of the parliament.
In 2018, the Parliament passed an anti-defection law. However it was later repealed.
Sign In
