MDP threatens action against MPs involved in no-confidence motion against AG

The main ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) said Thursday that Attorney General Ibrahim Riffath had done “responsible work” in the delimitation of the disputed maritime area between Maldives and Mauritius, and there are no grounds for a no-confidence motion against him.

Unhappy with the decision of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), Speaker Mohamed Nasheed’s Fikuregge Dhirun faction and the opposition Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Jumhoory Party (JP), and Maldives National Party (MNP) filed a no-confidence motion against Riffath earlier Thursday.

In a statement in response to the motion, MDP said Riffath “deserves commendation for the responsible work” Riffath did in defending Maldives’ interests, on an issue that previous administrations had paid little attention to.

MDP said they believe Riffath had defended Maldives’ best interests, and has always upheld the rule of the law and put the interests of the nation first in all his decisions.

The party said they see no room to question Riffath in the exercise of his responsibilities, and described the submission of the no-confidence motion as an “irresponsible act”.

MDP warned they will take action against MPs who collaborate with the opposition in violation of the party’s constitution and parliamentary group’s regulations.

The party alleged the motion was submitted following the failure of the PPM-PNC coalition’s serial protests.

This is a conspiracy to create hate against the government and violate the peace and stability of the nation and create division for personal political gain, said MDP.

The opposition alliance has accused the government of failure to act in the best interests of Maldives in the case, and filed a no-confidence motion against Attorney General Ibrahim Riffath earlier Thursday.

Though the Maldivian people had previously used the 95,563 square kilometers of disputed maritime area between Maldives and Mauritius, Maldives did not have any jurisdiction in the area. The area had not been delimited.

ITLOS awarded Maldives with 47,232 square kilometers of the disputed area, while Mauritius was awarded 45,331 square kilometers.

The opposition argues Maldives should have gotten the entire area.