Legal counsel from the AG office, Fathimath Haleem, argued that amendments should not be treated as laws and that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear cases related to such amendments.
Supreme Court today has decided to continue hearing the petition seeking to quash a constitutional amendment mandating that MPs lose their seats if they switch parties or are expelled submitted by former Kendhoo MP and lawyer Ali Hussain and the procedural objection raised by the Attorney General's Office regarding the petition to be decided on later.
The Attorney General's Office filed the objection, maintaining that constitutional amendments are a part of the constitution and should be interpreted accordingly. Legal counsel from the AG office, Fathimath Haleem, argued that amendments should not be treated as laws and that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear cases related to such amendments.
AG office further said that the court can only hear cases involving constitutional issues or challenges to the constitutionality of laws or decisions, not thematic issues surrounding constitutional amendments.
The full bench of the Supreme Court decided to address the procedural objection when issuing its judgment and has set a timeline for the state to respond to Ali Hussain's motion.
The judges also indicated that they would continue the case for now and gave the state 10 days to respond.
Ali Hussain's lawyer, Mahfooz Saeed, argued that the Constitution explicitly states that amendments can only be made through a law passed for that specific purpose.
He said that there is nothing in the constitution distinguishing constitutional amendments from other laws and that if an amendment contradicts another article, the Supreme Court should address it but cannot dictate what the article should state in the future.
Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) lawyers rejected the prosecution’s argument. MDP lawyer Anas Abdul Sattar stated that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot fundamentally alter its basic characteristics.
He said that the Supreme Court has the authority to conduct a judicial review of constitutional amendments, making it possible to hear the case.
Sign In
