Prosecution has stated in the Supreme Court today that party deflection is something the public holds concern over and the amendment to the Constitution where MPs can now lose their seat upon party deflection is a good change.

Former Kendhoo constituency Ali Hussain submitted a case to the Supreme Court to void the amendment that was brought to the Constitution in 2024, which is that MPs in the ruling party who defect or are made to defect from their respective political parties are to lose their MP seats.

The hearing that took place today after more than a year at the Supreme Court saw the prosecution state that research that was conducted by private associations shows that Maldivian citizens are not accepting of MPs' decisions to switch parties. The prosecution also stated that stopping MPs from switching parties is something that is done in other countries, and that courts in those countries have been upholding such changes.

The prosecution also highlighted that the Supreme Court earlier ruled in favour when the case submitted to the court regarding the amendment where an MP's seat can be taken from them during former President Abdulla Yameen's government. 

While responding to Ali Hussain's comments that stopping party deflection is against the doctrines of the Constitution, the prosecution stated that the doctrines of the Constitution are not acknowledged by many countries. And so, the prosecution said that courts do not accept cases regarding amendments to the Constitution in many other countries.

The prosecution went on to say that the very first thing that needs to be taken into account when defining the Constitution is what is written in the Constitution itself. They also questioned how the Constitution can be interpreted otherwise when the Constitution does not grant any power to the courts to review cases regarding amendments to the Constitution.

The prosecution continued, stating that MPs can only lose their seat when they are dismissed from the party in accordance with the law. The prosecution said that if there is a dispute when an MP loses their seat upon party deflection, the Supreme Court can look into the matter and so, the amendment has been designed in such a way that no influence can be exerted onto MPs. 

The prosecution once again brought up their opposition against the case not moving forward during today's hearing. They stated that as the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, cases cannot be submitted to the Supreme Court claiming that an  amendments to the Constitution are in violation of the Constitution.

The prosecution requested the court to rule that the case cannot be brought to the court or in the situation when a case can be brought to the court, to rule that the amendment is valid.

Ali Hussain's lawyer Aishath Sheena Mohamed said that because of the amendment regarding the loss of an MPs seat due to party deflection, it would encroach upon fundamental rights. And as the Constitution states that all powers start from the citizens, every subsequent effect goes against the doctrines of the Constitution, said Sheena.

According to Sheena, although stopping party deflection may have its pros and cons, it cannot validate the amendment to the Constitution. She also said that questions in the case were posed based on the phrasing of the amendment to the Constitution.

In response to the prosecution's statement that courts from many countries do not acknowledge the doctrines of the Constitution, Sheena stated that some of the rulings from foreign courts that were highlighted by the prosecution in the case are not rulings that were in relation to amendments to the Constitution.

Sheena also said that the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution in Maldives only under certain principles. She said that compared to other countries, the Maldivian Constitution was written so that the Parliament cannot be in violation of it either and so, the Parliament would not receive powers outside of their purview.

In response to the prosecution stating that MPs can only lose their seats under the amendment in accordance with the law, Sheena said that political parties have been unfair in some of their actions. She also said that as party members are dismissed as per the party's internal regulations, there cannot be any acknowledgment that MPs are losing their seat in a proper manner.

MDP, who had intervened in the case, spoke in favor of the amendment being abolished. MDP said that as the amendment affects the system of the three separated powers that are described in the Constitution, it opens up the opportunity for MPs to be influenced.

Today's hearing regarding the case has been put on hold, with the judge's bench announcing that it will continue later in the afternoon.

The judges for the case are Chief Justice Abdul Ghanee Mohamed, Judge Aisha Shujune Mohamed, Judge Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim, Judge Ali Rasheed Hussain, Judge Hussain Shaheed, Judge Abdulla Hameed and Judge Mohamed Saleem. The president of the bench is the Chief Justice.

As judges Dr. Azmiralda Zahir, Mahaz Ali Zahir and Husnu Al Suood, who oversaw the previous hearings for the case in the Supreme Court, have been suspended from the judge's bench, the hearings were brought to a halt until now. Since then, Judge Suood has resigned, and judges Azmiralda and Mahaz have been dismissed from their posts.