Eva Raises Constitutional and Legal Concerns Over Proposed Speaker Transfer
Photo: People’s Majlis
The Deputy Speaker of the People’s Majlis, Eva Abdullah, has expressed constitutional and legal reservations, asserting that the suggested transfer of the Speaker of the People’s Majlis to another individual amid an ongoing session would potentially violate both the Constitution and judgment by the Supreme Court.
މިޖިލީހުގެ ނައިބު ރައީސް ރިޔާސަތު ބެލެހެއްޓުމަށް ކަނޑައެޅިފައިވާ ޖަލްސާއެއްގެ ރިޔާސަތު ނައިބު ރައީސް ބަލަހައްޓަމުން ދަނިކޮށް އެހެން އެއްވެސް ފަރާތަކާ ޖަލްސާގެ ރިޔާސަތު ހަވާލުކޮއްފިނަމަ އަމީން ޢާންމު ޤާނޫނުއަސާސީއާއި ގަވާއިދާއި ސުޕްރީމް ކޯޓުގެ ޙުކުމާ ޚީލާފުވީ. pic.twitter.com/U63Yg9eiFk
— Eva Abdulla 🎈❓ (@evattey) November 13, 2023
Eva specifically stated that the Secretary General of Majlis, Fathimath Niusha, would be in violation of the constitution and Supreme Court’s judgement.
A scheduled session at 11:00 am today aimed to address a no-confidence motion against Mohamed Nasheed, the Speaker of the People’s Majlis. Concerns were expressed by members of the MDP, and efforts were made by Niusha to mediate the situation with Eva.
Despite these efforts, the House proceeded with the session, adjourning it and scheduling another at 4:00 pm to continue the no-confidence motion against Nasheed.
Consequently, she argues that Nasheed’s removal from office within the parliamentary system is not a valid concern. Eva contends that the Secretary General lacks the authority to dismiss the decision and reconvene the session.
Referring to a Supreme Court ruling, Eva asserts that Article 44 allows the transfer of the presidency only in the absence of Eva. She further argues that the Secretary-General lacks the authority to appoint a replacement unless the Deputy Speaker excuses himself.
The controversy arises from the Secretary General’s request for Eva to step aside from the presidency. This request follows the approval of a recommendation by the General Committee of Parliament, citing that no one with Nasheed’s interests should hold the presidency.
In response, Eva emphasises that the Council General of Parliament should provide legal advice on parliamentary matters, asserting that the Attorney General’s advice is not permissible under the law.