Parliament Presented with Bill to Penalise Floor Crossing by Lawmakers

MV+ News Desk | April 23, 2024

A bill was introduced to Parliament today aimed at amending the constitution to stipulate the loss of parliamentary seats for lawmakers engaging in floor crossing.

President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu endorsed the Anti-Defection Bill, which legally enforces the forfeiture of parliamentary seats for lawmakers involved in floor crossing, on April 16th. The legislation requires lawmakers to resign from their electoral positions should they switch the political party under which they were elected. However, it does not outline the procedure if a lawmaker refuses to resign.

advertisement

The first reading of the bill, presented by West Henveiru MP Hassan Latheef on March 26th, seeking to include in the constitution the provision for lawmakers to lose their parliamentary seats upon floor crossing, was conducted during Tuesday’s parliamentary session.

Hassan Latheef proposed the addition of a new subsection after Article 76 (d) of the Constitution.

A majority vote by the constituents to recall a lawmaker, initiated by a petition supported by a certain percentage of the voting population, which is reviewed by the relevant parliamentary committee to determine whether to proceed with the vote.

As per the ratified Anti-Defection Bill, lawmakers are required to resign under two specific circumstances:

  • Voluntary resignation from the political party through which the member was elected.
  • Switching parties.
  • Additionally, the law mandates a recall vote in two situations:
  • Dismissal or removal from the party under which the member was elected.
  • Independent members joining political parties.

However, the legislation’s requirement for lawmakers to resign has raised legal queries as it does not specify the course of action if a lawmaker refuses to resign due to any of the aforementioned reasons.

Baarah MP Ahmed Abdulla, who proposed the Act, stated that in such instances, the court would make a decision, asserting that the law’s current wording aligns with specific terms in the constitution.

ރިއެކްޝަންސް
0
0
0
0
0
0
0