Parliament Secretary General Fathimath Niusha has stated in Supreme Court today that there are four possible solutions to facilitate the progression of the no confidence motion against Speaker Mohamed Nasheed through the legislative system.
Niusha made these comments in the second hearing at the Supreme Court of the constitutional case against the parliament submitted by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) after the parliament's failure to conduct a session on the no-confidence motion against the Speaker. Despite consecutive sittings being scheduled for the matter, the Parliament Secretariat had to cancel each sitting due to Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla's absence on account of being on sick leave.
In the hearing, Niusha asserted that the Secretariat does not hold the authority to act otherwise when the Regulations clearly stipulate that a certain individual has to preside over a sitting concerning a specific motion.
However, she went on to propose four solutions within the legislative framework to the problem currently being explored in the case.
The first solution she proposed was to allow, under Article 108 of the Parliament Regulations, the General Purposes Committee to take the initiative to change parliament rules by submitting it to the parliament floor.
She stated that the second option is for a member of parliament to submit a motion to amend the Regulations, but opined that this could be time-consuming.
The third path to take would be for a member to submit the amendment of the Regulations as a resolution. Niusha noted that there is currently an ongoing resolution of a similar vein at the Parliament, submitted by MDP Parliamentary Group Leader MP Mohamed Aslam. The parliament has requested the Deputy Speaker to place the resolution on the agenda.
The last possible solution, as per the SG, is, in accordance with Article 250 of the Regulations, for the parliament to reach a decision on how to proceed with the manner as there is no clear instruction on how to proceed if the Deputy Speaker fails to preside over a Speaker's no-confidence motion.
The parliament continues to maintain that parliament sessions can be held as usual with no interruptions as the no confidence motion has not yet been submitted to the parliament floor as per the regulations.
One intervenor to the case, The Democrats, echoed this statement and claimed that since the parliament has not been halted or forced in to a constitutional void, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to preside over this case.
However, MDP rebuts this claim, adding that any future sittings of the parliament should have the no confidence motion first on its agenda until the matter is resolved.
MDP Lawyer Ahmed Abdulla Afeef stated in court today that under the current circumstances, MDP believes that the no-confidence motion against Nasheed has to be the first item on the agenda even for the Presidential Inauguration scheduled to be held on November 17.
Judge Mahaz Ali Zahir said at the conclusion of the hearings that unless further information needs to be sought, the next sitting would be to issue a verdict on the case.
Sign In