Legal professionals have expressed criticism towards the motion of ex parte submitted to the Supreme Court by the Attorney General requesting a precedent stating that an impeachment of a Cabinet Minister shall only be taken after giving a reasonable cause for it.
The motion comes under Subject 101 of the Constitution, requesting that a reasonable cause must be required to submit a motion of no confidence against a Cabinet Minister and that a political motive shall not push the parliament to remove any of the ministers from their respective positions.
A tweet posted by lawyer Maumoon Hameed regarding the matter stated that the AG's ex parte motion can be accepted if the former two Vice Presidents of this government had not been unlawfully removed under the watch of the current Attorney General, Mohamed Anil.
While referring to another precedent of the Supreme Court, Maumoon Hameed added that it is against the Constitution for the AG to advocate against the legislature on behalf of the government.
Former Solicitor General of Attorney General's Office Ibrahim Riffath also tweeted that the Supreme Court cannot grant a power not given by the Constitution.
Meanwhile, impeached former Vice President Mohamed Jameel Ahmed slammed the AG for not making the same argument during the former's impeachment and warned not to play political games by using the courts. He also suspected that the ex parte motion is against the check and balance system, and accused AG Anil of attempting to shatter the constitutional system of the country.
Another lawyer Hassan Ma’aaz Shareef said that whether the cause for a no confidence of a Cabinet Minister is reasonable or not, it shall only be decided by the parliament and not the courts.
However, the AG claims that impeaching Cabinet Ministers without a reasonable cause is a feature of parliamentary system and that it contradicts the presidential system which has separated the three powers.