Supreme Court Sets Hearing Date for MDP Case Over Nasheed No-Confidence Motion

The Supreme Court has arranged hearings scheduled to commence next week following a petition filed by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) seeking legal guidance amid allegations against Speaker Mohamed Nasheed, accusing him of obstructing the no-confidence motion lodged against him. 

The court has confirmed that hearings are set to begin from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm on Monday.

advertisement

advertisement

advertisement

The Parliament had originally planned three sessions to deliberate on the MDP’s no-confidence motion against Nasheed this week. However, the absence of Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla, who cited dengue fever as the reason for her unavailability, led Parliament’s Secretary General Fathimath Niusha to rule that the sessions could not proceed without her chairing.

This decision prompted strong objections from MDP lawmakers, who subsequently filed a case with the Supreme Court, contesting the decision’s constitutional validity and its infringement upon the Parliament’s Standing Orders.

MDP is seeking two specific resolutions from the Supreme Court. 

Firstly, they are urging the court to clarify the obligation of implementing Article 44 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders when the Deputy Speaker is unable to preside over a session involving a no-confidence motion against the Speaker. Secondly, the MDP is seeking a mandate preventing the Parliament from conducting any other business until the no-confidence motion is addressed, citing Article 205 (d) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders.

The turmoil within the Parliament arises amid pending legislative tasks, including the approval of a supplementary budget and the 2024 state budget, in anticipation of President-elect Dr. Mohamed Muizzu’s inauguration on November 17.

MDP representatives have emphasised their refusal to entertain other parliamentary proceedings until the resolution of the pending no-confidence motion. Mohamed Aslam, the MDP’s parliamentary group leader, highlighted that resorting to the Supreme Court was the final course of action following the exhaustion of alternative options.

Notably, the MDP initially submitted no-confidence motions against both Nasheed and Eva earlier in the year but withdrew them in September during negotiations with the Democrats, the party to which both Nasheed and Eva belong, concerning the presidential runoff election. 

The motion against Nasheed was refiled on October 9 with the endorsement of 49 MPs, with the MDP issuing a three-line whip to vote in favor of the motion.