In today's initial hearing on the constitutional case submitted by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) against the Parliament at the Supreme Court, intervenor Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and People's National Congress (PNC) Coalition's Lawyer Azima Shakoor has harshly criticized Attorney General (AG) Ibrahim Riffath.
Azima said that it was wrongful of the AG to remain silent and inactive in the face of Parliament's actions which she alleges contravenes the Constitution of Maldives.
The constitutional case was submitted by MDP following numerous failed attempts to conduct a parliament sitting to confer on a no-confidence motion the party submitted against Parliament Speaker Mohamed Nasheed.
Despite scheduling the motion consecutively over a week, none of the sittings were allowed to proceed as Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla continued to call in sick every day and the Parliament Secretary General maintains that, as per Regulations, such a sitting can only be conducted in the presence of the Deputy Speaker.
MDP's case at Supreme Court seeks to prove that the Secretary General's decision contravenes the Constitution. Meanwhile, the Attorney General's Office, who represents Parliament in Court, has also spoken against the Secretariat and agreed that the decision is against the laws.
Attorney General's Office's Counsel General Fathimath Haleem said in court yesterday that the Regulations cannot be interpreted in a manner that halts the institution's functions and drives it into a constitutional void. However, the Parliament Secretariat has rejected this statement and instead backed the decision made by the Secretary General.
Raising questions on this matter, Azima first highlighted a procedural matter. She said that the differing views of the Parliament Secretariat and their legal representative, the AG office, raised confusions about what the actual stand of the State is on the matter. The bench of Judges overruled this objection.
As the legal representative of one intervenor in the case, Azima stated that parliament has not been functioning since June this year, leading to the completion of a presidential election in the absence of a working parliament. She said that the AG also accepted that this was a result of wrongful interpretations of the law on the part of the parliament. As the matter has now been raised in court, without any prior action being taken on the matter, Azima called on the bench to hold the matter in consideration when presiding over the case.
Azima repeated that as the Attorney General represents the entire State, it is within his mandate to ensure that all State institutions are functioning within the margins of the Constitution.
Referring to Attorney General Riffath's advice against continuing parliamentary work without first deciding on the no-confidence motion, which led to Finance Minister Ibrahim Ameer refusing to attend parliament to propose the State budget, Azima denounced the decision, stating that even the AG cannot, under any circumstances, provide legal advice that contravenes the Constitution. She added that in following that advice, Minister Ameer had also acted against the Constitution.
The Attorney General's Office, however, stands by their reasoning that no parliamentary work can be conducted without deciding on a Speaker's no-confidence motion, and reiterated their stand even in yesterday's court hearing.
The contention in this case rises from the Parliament's interpretation of Article 82 (f) of the Consitution, which states that the Speaker himself cannot preside over a sitting where his no-confidence is being debated or voted upon.
Meanwhile Article 205 (e) of the Parliament Regulations stipulate that a sitting conferring on the removal of a Speaker must be presided over by the Deputy Speaker. Due to this regulation, the Secretary General of the Parliament maintains that there is no allowance for anyone else to preside over such a sitting.
Sign In