Supreme Court Set to Render Verdict on Nasheed Case This Evening

The Supreme Court is set to announce its decision on the case lodged by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), revolving around the impasse in parliament following the submission of a second no-confidence motion against Parliament Speaker Mohamed Nasheed. 

The verdict is scheduled to be delivered at 4:00 pm this evening.

advertisement

advertisement

advertisement

The hearings for this case commenced on Monday and concluded within two days, ending on Tuesday.

MDP, the party that instigated the case, is urging the Supreme Court to create a pathway for the no-confidence motion to progress, even in the absence of the Deputy Speaker during the session. Their contention is grounded in Article 205 of the parliament’s regulations, which lacks a directive in the event of the Deputy Speaker’s unavailability to oversee a no-confidence motion against the Speaker.

They assert that the Supreme Court’s guidance is pivotal to avert a parliamentary deadlock. Furthermore, MDP contends that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to amend the parliament’s regulations amid the current dispute over the no-confidence motion against the speaker and in other circumstances. 

They argue that any alteration to the regulations by the Supreme Court would be unconstitutional and beyond its authority.

However, MDP maintains that the forthcoming judgment will not introduce a new article to the regulations.

The Democrats, representing Nasheed’s party in the case, intervened to express their stance.

Former Attorney General Azima Shukoor, serving as the counsel for the intervening PPM-PNC in the case, emphasized that the issue at hand concerns the interpretation of both the constitution and the parliament’s regulations.

The Attorney General’s Office Counsel, Fathimath Haleem, representing the state in the case, argued that the matter is fundamentally constitutional, rooted in differences of interpretation of the rules. MDP supported this argument.

Fathimath Niusha, the Secretary General of the Parliament, elucidated four potential pathways for the Parliament Secretariat to navigate this issue:

Utilising Article 108 (B) of the parliament’s regulations, where the General Committee of the Parliament independently decides on an amendment to the regulations and presents it to the parliament floor.

An ordinary member proposing a resolution to amend the parliament’s regulations as stipulated in Article 167 of the regulations.

Initiating an amendment to regulations as a motion in accordance with Article 249 (B) of the parliament’s regulation.

The parliament reaching a decision on this specific circumstance, as Article 205 of the regulation does not provide a procedural guideline on how to proceed.

Notably, Nasheed’s motion was initially slated for the past week’s Sunday session, which was subsequently cancelled due to the unavailability of Eva, Nasheed’s cousin and a fellow Democrats member, who cited illness.

The no-confidence motion was on the agenda for all days last week, except Tuesday, none of which proceeded as Eva was indisposed for all those sessions.

The sitting on the no-confidence motion was set for a fifth time on Sunday morning. However, Eva abstained from overseeing the session considering the pending Supreme Court case, and also called in sick on Sunday.

Following this sequence of events, the Parliament Secretariat declared its decision not to schedule sessions on Nasheed’s motion until the resolution of the Supreme Court case.

Last month, MDP submitted the no-confidence motion supported by 49 MPs, marking the second time this year. To pass a no-confidence motion against the parliament speaker, the support of 43 MPs is necessary. MDP, commanding a supermajority, currently holds 56 MPs in the parliament.