Ali Hussain said that the petition raised a constitutional question and that the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction over such matters as the constitutional question raised is regarding the loss of order in the presidential system in Maldives.
Lawyer Ali Hussain, who has petitioned the Supreme Court to annul the recent constitutional amendment mandating MPs to lose their seats if they switch parties or are expelled, has said that the amendment was not passed in accordance with proper legislative procedures.
The Attorney General’s Office, however, maintains that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. Prosecution lawyers argue that under Chapter 12 of the Constitution, no court has the authority to annul a constitutional amendment.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan questioned whether the amendment was passed in line with legislative procedures.
Attorney General’s Office counsel Fathimath Haleem responded that Parliament had followed all constitutional procedures and secured enough votes to pass the amendment.
Ali Hussain acknowledged that procedures had been formally completed but argued that a critical principle which is consultation, was ignored.
He said that the amendment was introduced, debated, passed by the committee stage, approved by Parliament, and ratified all within the same day.
Unlike other bills, which are typically open to public and stakeholder consultations, this amendment lacked such scrutiny, he said.
Judge Mahaz Ali Zahir asked whether hearing the case would mean the court was exercising power it does not have.
In response, Ali Hussain said that the petition raised a constitutional question and that the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction over such matters as the constitutional question raised is regarding the loss of order in the presidential system in Maldives.
"For example, if Parliament were to amend the Constitution to abolish the Supreme Court, who would review that decision?" he said.
The Attorney General’s Office reiterated its stance that the court cannot hear a case to annul a part of the Constitution. However, Fathimath Haleem said that while courts cannot overturn constitutional provisions, individuals affected by such provisions could bring cases to court.
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
