The Democrats on Tuesday, November 7, has said that parliament MPs have the right for political intervention of the parliament since the legislative body's works are majorly comprised of policy-making.
Advocate Abdulla Shaair, representing The Democrats which has intervened into the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)-filed constitutional lawsuit at the Supreme Court, said that procedurally the top court does not have jurisdiction in accepting the case.
Shaair argued that the Maldives Constitution does not allow for any entity to file lawsuits with the Supreme Court to ensure validity of parliament proceedings.
He also said that a Supreme Court advisory for a parliament review can only be done after approving it at the legislative, which he explained was stipulated to ensure separation of powers of the state.
"I believe this re-interpretation of an Article, that is clearly stated, is an act of the Supreme Court to amend the parliament regulation," Shaair argued.
He also said that The Democrats believe that the parliament regulation's provision stipulating that the Deputy Speaker should preside as the chair of the no-confidence sitting of the Speaker, has been correctly interpreted by the parliament secretariat.
The Democrats' representative also said that despite the claim of MDP that the parliament has hit another deadlock following the interruption of Nasheed's no-confidence, there has been no constitutional vacuum. He also said that it is the privilege of the MPs for political intervention parliament proceedings since majority of the works in the legislative body is related to policymaking.
"... While we know that MPs have the privilege of political intervention on parliament proceedings, such interruptions would not lead to constitutional vacuum," Shaair added.
Justice Azmiralda Zahir questioned The Democrats' argument that the apex court cannot investigate the constitutional lawsuit according to the political doctrine.
In response, West-Henveiru MP Hassan Latheef said a no-confidence motion against Nasheed was submitted earlier in June as well, but it was rescinded days before the presidential campaigning for political motivations. He also said the case was resubmitted once the circumstances shifted once more after the elections.
Latheef argued the no-confidence motion was politically motivated.
The judges bench presiding over the case include Justices Dr. Azmiralda Zahir, Husnu-al Suood, Ali Rasheed, Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim, and Mahaz Ali Zahir, who is also the chair.
Sign In