Opposition requests end to Supreme Court terms for MPs to lose seats

Members of the opposition has filed a suit at the Supreme Court today requesting to put an end to the terms for MPs to lose their seats as per a previous ruling of the court.

A statement issued by the opposition coalition today said that ruling by the Supreme Court setting up certain conditions for MPs to lose their seat was a temporary rule to the laws and regulations of the law of political parties currently in effect.

The suit filed today said that after a long time has passed since the court's ruling and still no sign of passing the anti-defection law affects the power of the Constitution and other specific laws within.

It further stated that an MP can lose their seat only in accordance to the law of political parties or a regulation under it and no entity has the power to make the decision on the matter without reference to the law of political parties.

And so requested the Supreme Court to overrule the decision by the Elections Commission claiming that some MPs have lost their parliamentarian seat.

After filing the suit at the Supreme Court, the Leader of the MDP Parliamentary Group, the MP for Hinnavaru constituency, Ibrahim Mohamed Solih (Ibu) said that the parliament itself is obstructing 12 MPs from fulfilling their constitutional obligation and hope to lift those obstructions through the Supreme Court.

The opposition coalition went to court after the initial announcement by the Elections Commission sayings that some MPs have lost their parliamentarian seat as well. To which the Supreme Court responded that the verdict and orders which followed on the matter of floor crossing by the Supreme Court is clear.

Supreme Court's verdict said that an MP would lose their parliamentarian seat for leaving their political party, switching to another political party or being fired from their current political party, after 13 July 2017. The court did not specify that a specific MP lost their seat or not.

The court said that a clear decision was made on the issue and so there was not need for another ruling.