MPs may not agree with Supreme Court ruling, but it must be obeyed: Filza

Parliament Counsel General Fathimath Filza has said that the Supreme Court ruling disallowing secret voting when voting on no-confidence motions against the president, vice president and ministers is the final decision on the matter; and that MPs may not agree with this ruling, but it must be obeyed.

Filza said this while speaking on the issue at a meeting of the Parliament General Committee.

She said that the Parliament Procedures must now be amended to disallow secret voting on such motions, and be sent to the parliament floor for a decision.

Filza however said that allowing secret voting would not obstruct the transparency of parliament sittings, which is a requirement under the new Constitution; as conducting secret voting is not the same as holding parliament sittings in secret.

“The Constitution mentions two policies on voting. One is where it describes the circumstances in which secret voting can be conducted. The second is where it does not state a procedure on how voting should be conducted. There are some circumstances for which the Constitution does not state how voting should be conducted. Article 85 of the Constitution is about holding parliament sittings in secret. If secret voting is the same as holding parliament sittings in secret, this would have been mentioned in article 85. The Constitution stipulates the circumstances in which sittings can be held in secret, and the circumstances in which secret voting can be conducted. And then there are circumstances for which no procedure is mentioned for voting. So secret voting is not the same as holding parliament sittings in secret, and that’s not the intention of the Constitution either,” she said.

She said that people put trust in MPs when electing them to the parliament, and that MPs make decisions after considering the political situation and all factors pertinent to the issue at hand.

She said that even if secret voting is allowed, people will be able to observe the activities of the parliament sittings; and even though they are not able to see who votes ‘yes’ and who votes ‘no’, they would be able to see the final results.

She stressed that conducting secret voting can thus, not be interpreted to be the same things as holding parliament sittings in secret.

The Attorney General was not present at the General Committee meeting, despite being summoned.

Concluding the meeting, Chairman Maafannu-West MP Abdullah Abdul Raheem said that the committee will make a decision at the next meeting on how to proceed with the matter.