On Tuesday, November 7, hearing of the constitutional lawsuit filed by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) at the Supreme Court, an intense debate transpired regarding the top court's legal jurisdiction to examine the case.
The constitutional lawsuit by the outgoing ruling party was submitted following parliament secretariat's decision to park the no-confidence motion of Speaker Mohamed Nasheed in favor of two budget bills, which needed immediate attention in accordance with the Public Finance Act.
MDP contested the secretariat's interpretation of the parliament regulation, and sought through its lawsuit with the apex court for a correct interpretation of the law.
Although it has been more than a week since the parliament has attempted to table Nasheed's no-confidence on agenda, the matter has been pushed back owing to Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla remaining on leave after contracting dengue fever.
In its decision to park the motion after attempting to table it for a fifth time, parliament secretariat said only the Deputy Speaker can preside as the chair of the Speaker's no-confidence sitting according to parliament regulation.
MDP contested the secretariat's decision claiming this was a misinterpretation of the regulation.
During Tuesday's hearing, The Democrats, to which Nasheed belongs to and recently intervened into the constitutional lawsuit, questioned about legal jurisdiction of the case.
The Democrats argued that according to the 'Political Question Doctrine' the court does not have jurisdiction in accepting and examining the lawsuit, as argued by the party's legal representative Abdulla Shaair.
In the case of Dr. Mohamed Jameel's dismissal as Maldives Vice President, Supreme Court Justice Dr. Azmiralda Zahir held that any decision of the parliament can only be reviewed by the courts or judiciary if the act committed was a direct violation to the Maldives Constitution.
"The courts cannot accept any matter arising simply due to conflict of ideologies, or if the case is based on political questions for which the courts cannot provide remedy," the verdict regarding Dr. Jameel's dismissal read.
According to Article 88(b) of the Maldives Constitution, the validity of any proceedings in the parliament cannot be questioned in any court of law unless specified in the Constitution. Supreme Court, however, later held that the exemption to this clause were matters in direct contradiction of the Constitution, and that such matters could be submitted to the court to seek legal remedies.
On Tuesday's hearing, co-founder of The Democrats and West-Henveiru MP Hassan Latheef argued that the lawsuit was a political issue, and said it was submitted with the aim of seeking political benefits.
Hassan further said that due to the nature of the case, The Democrats do not believe Supreme Court has jurisdiction in examining the case with respect to the 'Political Question Doctrine' as well.
The political question doctrine, as explained in the US Constitution "limits the ability of the federal courts to hear constitutional questions".
"Since the matter can be resolved within the parliament, we believe the lawsuit cannot be examined according to the Political Question Doctrine. This can easily be remedied with an amendment to the parliament's regulation which MDP has the option of," Hassan said.
"Supreme Court should not be stepping in to such a significant matter of the parliament, especially since it relates to the Parliament Speaker and the political parties that have a stake in the matter. The issue could be resolved within the parliament."
MDP's legal representative Ahmed Abdulla Afeef countered this argument referring to Judicature Act's Article 11(a) which grants the legal jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to examine such constitutional lawsuits. Afeef argued that the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to "adjudicate on constitutional issues" which include, any issue leading the Maldives to a constitutional void or remove the country from the constitutional framework, a dispute between "two powers or institutions of the State" regarding the interpretation of the Constitution, or a constitutional issue concerning the public interest.
Though The Democrats argued the matter can be remedied through the parliament, MDP's advocate counter-argued that the issue was not proceeding in the legislative body accordingly.
Afeef also highlighted that MDP submitted for an amendment of the parliament regulation, but was rejected by the Parliament Speaker since the discretion lies with Nasheed as the Speaker.
"What is observable in the interruption of a matter that is a mandatory action according to the parliament regulation. That is why we are seeking remedy from the Supreme Court," Afeef said.
Attorney General's Office advocate Fathimath Haleem, representing the parliament, argued that the current lawsuit is regarding the misinterpretation of the parliament regulation and the said regulation's ultra vires to the Constitution. She argued the lawsuit was not seeking a political benefit, but rather the Supreme Court's opinion on the legal interpretation of the regulation. She concurred that if the case was submitted for a political reason, then it would be about finding the answer to the political question raised.
Fathimath also argued that the case does not fit to Article 88(b) of the Constitution since the issue is not regarding a decision of the parliament but rather of the parliament's secretariat.
She highlighted previous Supreme Court cases on similar matters that have set precedent, which included a case of parliament regulation's provisional ultra vires to the Constitution as well as a case of unlawful parliament recess.
Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and People's National Congress (PNC) coalition, which too intervened into the case, was represented at the court's hearing by former Attorney General Azim Shukoor who argued that the current circumstances transpired from an interruption to the constitutional framework and parliament's deadlock. In her argument, she said that the Supreme Court has legal jurisdiction to examine the matter through a judicial review if the matter relates to the actions of both the speaker and deputy speaker.
"Since the implementation of the current Constitution, Maldives will have the remedy of judicial review. Whether it is regarding the actions of the parliament secretariat staff, of between two government officials, it should not be interpreted in a manner stripping the jurisdiction of Supreme Court," Azima said.
Azima also said that the political circumstances of the country have reached a point where they require intervention or inspection. She also recommended it was imperative to seek remedies to ensure the constitutional framework remains uninterrupted before addressing the lawsuit, and said that seeking remedy through the judicature is necessary if it was not achieved within the parliament.
"Should we remain stuck in this matter? That is not ideal. The parliament is a political avenue, and operated by politicians. This is about a dispute between two political leaders and despite this the [parliament's] work must proceed ahead," Azima said.
"Supreme Court must provide a remedy for this, without receiving directions how can a State move forward."
The court concluded all hearings on the case on Tuesday, and the judges' bench declared verdict will be delivered on the next hearing.
Sign In
