The no-confidence motion against Speaker Nasheed has been put on the parliament’s agenda for Sunday, after the Supreme Court ruled there was no obstacle to go ahead with the motion.
The motion, which had been put on the agenda five different occasions in the past, had not been able to proceed since Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla had been on leave. The Parliament Secretariat maintained that as per regulations, the Deputy Speaker has to oversee a no-confidence motion against the Speaker. Therefore, Maldives Democratic Party (MDP) had filed a case with the Supreme Court, requesting they rule that in the event the Deputy Speaker is absent, one of the five longest serving parliamentarians should preside over the session.
Soon after the complaint was filed, Eva informed the parliament that she refused to preside over sittings until the Supreme Court settled the matter.
In their verdict, the Supreme Court said that in cases where the Speaker and The Deputy Speaker cannot preside, the provision that the five members to be appointed under the rules of the parliament who can preside over the chair is to avoid any legal vacuum should they arise in such an event. The court noted that there was no provision in the rules in which the five aforementioned parliamentarians could not preside.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Secretariat's interpretation that since the regulations clearly state that the Deputy Speaker will preside over a motion for removal of the Speaker or a sitting, no additional member can preside over such a resolution, is incorrect.
The Supreme Court said that while the rules provide space so that the Chair does not fall vacant, in this case too, the rules have to be interpreted with full consideration of other relevant clauses.
Following the unanimous verdict by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, the parliament secretariat has scheduled a chamber meeting at 9 AM on Sunday to proceed with Nasheed's no-confidence motion.
Only the no-confidence motion against Nasheed is on the agenda for Sunday’s parliamentary session.
In its petition, the party has sought a direction under Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure to make it mandatory for one of the five longest serving members of the parliament to preside over a motion to remove the Speaker, and that no further parliamentary work can be undertaken without taking a decision on the motion.
The five-judge bench, however, ruled that parliament should do what is mandated under the Constitution. This is because even if there is a situation where the Speaker's resolution cannot be taken up, the parliament still has to proceed with what they are required to by law.
In this regard, the swearing-in ceremony of the President Elect Dr. Mohamed Muizzu and the approval of his cabinet are constitutionally mandated for the parliament and the parliament has no jurisdiction to forgo undertaking this work under any circumstances, the the ruling said.
The case was heard by Justice Mahaz Ali Zahir and Justice Justice Dr. Azmiralda Zahir, Justice Husnu Suood, Justice Ali Rasheed and Justice Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim.
Sign In