The Supreme Court has ruled today that failure to proceed with the no confidence motion in Parliament does not constitute as reasonable grounds to inhibit the inauguration of the President Elect or the work on the State budget.
While the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in deciding that a sitting on a Speaker's no confidence motion can proceed in parliament even in the Deputy Speaker's absence, the bench ruled against the party by deciding that legally obligated work of the Parliament must proceed even in the instance that a no confidence motion remains parked.
The case was submitted after the Parliament Secretariat's repeated cancellations of the sittings to confer on the no-confidence motion submitted by MDP against Parliament Speaker Mohamed Nasheed.
The Secretariat maintained that they could not conduct the sittings as Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla remained on sick leave and the parliament regulations stipulated that only the Deputy Speaker can preside over a sitting overseeing a no confidence motion against the Speaker.
MDP had appealed to the Supreme Court to interpret the laws in a manner that allowed one of the five longest serving parliamentarians to preside over no confidence sittings sitting as well, as is allowed in the case of other general sittings where the Speaker and Deputy Speaker fail to attend. They further sought an order that no parliamentary work can proceed unless the matter of Speaker's no confidence is first decided upon.
MDP went on to state in court that the matter of no confidence must be the first item on agenda even for the Presidential Inauguration.
However, the Supreme Court ruled today that no articles in the Parliament Regulations can be interpreted in a manner that inhibits the proceeding of an act made obligatory in the Constitution or overrides the Constitution in any form.
Presiding Justice Mahaz Ali Zahir stated that as per Article 205 of the Parliament Regulations, a notice period of 14 days must be given at the submittal of a no confidence motion against a Speaker, and on the first working day following the end of this duration, the motion must be tabled in a parliament sitting.
He stated that it is a condition made obligatory on the Parliament to ensure that unless this motion is tabled and decided upon, no other parliamentary matter is completed or debated upon.
He added that despite this ruling, the Constitution will take precedence over Parliament Regulations in every instance.
Justice Husnu Suood stated that he did not believe that the regulations can be interpreted in a manner that promotes other work of the parliament coming to a halt in a situation where, for any reason, there is a delay in conducting a no confidence motion.
He added that there are no circumstances under which a law can be interpreted to stipulate a halt to parliament proceedings.
The Justice noted that facilitating the inauguration of the President-elect is an obligation on the entire State.
"No article in the Parliament Regulations can obstruct a matter made obligatory in the Constitution. No State Official can act in obstruction of a Constitutional obligation. Proposal of the budget and approval of the cabinet must not be brought to a halt. The reason being that these are things clearly stipulated in various articles in the Constitution and made obligatory for the parliament to act on," Justice Husnu Suood said.
The verdict was reached unanimously by the five Justices on the Supreme Court bench presiding over the case.
Sign In
