The Supreme Court has ruled today that constitutional amendment under which Members of Parliament would lose their seats if they are dismissed from or resign from their political party is valid.
The case seeking to invalidate the amendment, which mandates the vacation of a parliamentary seat if a member changes parties or is removed from their party, was submitted to the Supreme Court by former Kendhoo MP Ali Hussain.
In the case, Ali Hussain appealed to the Supreme Court to invalidate the amendment, and in the case that the amendment is deemed valid, to rule that it would not apply to members of the current parliament term.
Announcing the verdict at today's Supreme Court hearing, Chief Justice Abdul Ghanee said that since the parliament holds the power to amend the constitution, and in line with practices in other democratic systems, introducing such an amendment does not violate constitutional supremacy.
He noted that in other countries with presidential governance systems, MPs lose their seats on changing political parties, proving that the concept is applied in presidential systems as well. The policy is also applied in countries with hybrid presidential/parliamentarian governance systems, he added.
"It has been observed that such laws have been enacted in countries to prevent undue advantage being taken," the Chief Justice stated.
The Chief Justice went on to highlight that a similar law was passed in Maldives in 2017 as well, which the Supreme Court had ruled valid at the time. Nor has any questions been raised regarding the validity of the existing law which calls for the resignation of MPs who change party affiliations, he said.
The Chief Justice stated that once the amendment is ratified, it will also apply to members of the current parliament, stressing that doing so does not breach any legal provisions.
Responding to Ali Hussain's claim that the amendment violated the basic structure doctrine, the Chief Justice said the doctrine is an important safeguard for constitutional supremacy. However, he noted that rather than the court defining what constitutes basic structure, parliament could determine it instead.
Although the court raised a procedural point that the court cannot rule on an amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court's verdict disagreed, stating that the Constitution does not specify that the Supreme Court cannot hear a case regarding a constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court upheld the amendment with a six-judge majority.
Justice Aisha Shujune Mohamed dissented, arguing that the amendment should be struck down. She said MPs are elected as individuals to serve the public interest, and while they are granted certain privileges, the amendment in its current form could allow party policies to hinder their work.
The case is being heard by a full bench of seven Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice Abdul Ghanee Mohamed, Justice Aisha Shujune Mohamed, Justice Dr Mohamed Ibrahim, Justice Ali Rasheed Hussain, Justice Hussain Shaheed, Justice Abdulla Hameed, and Justice Mohamed Saleem.
