Finance Act amendments in line with Constitution: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has decided that the amendments made by the Parliament during former President Mohamed Nasheed’s government to the Finance Act do not contradict the Constitution.

This ruling comes following a case filed by the Attorney General of Nasheed’s government in December 2010, requesting the Court to rule that articles 5, 7, 10(a) and 34 contradict the Constitution.

Supreme Court’s ruling details that it is accepted in democratic countries of the world that the Parliament watches over government finances.

This includes passing the government budget and financial statements in financial functions, and making decisions on taxes, fees, loans, financial commitments, lease of government property on concession basis, salaries, returns and pensions.

It also states that the abovementioned issues are covered in articles 96, 97 and 250 of the Constitution.

Article 5 of the Finance Act was amended such that the government requires Parliament approval prior to taking loans, providing guarantees or mortgaging properties.

Article 7 was amended such that any relief, benefit or subsidy by the state must be given in accordance with laws passed by the Parliament.

Article 10(a) states that financial benefits provided by the government to any groups of citizens must be issued in line with laws passed by parliament.

Article 34 stipulates that the government must implement recommendations of the parliamentary committee that reviews the state budget.