MDP: Supreme Court’s opinion important to avoid a parliament deadlock

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), underscoring the Supreme Court can advise on the ongoing debate with respect to the no-confidence motion against Parliament Speaker, states the advice of the court is crucial at the moment.

In the ongoing hearings of the petition filed MDP over the case, The Democrats have repeatedly stated that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case.

Their reasoning is that any decision made by the Supreme Court on the case will constitute to amending the parliament’s regulations, adding that the Supreme Court does not have the power to “make the law”. Therewith, The Democrats states any changes to such a regulation will be unconstitutional.

Rebutting the arguments by The Democrats, MDP said their petition does not involve a decision of the parliament, but pertains to an administrative decision.

“Cannot come (to the court) with a decision of the parliament,” lawyer Ahmed Abdulla Afeef who represents MDP said.

He also said any points noted in this case’s judgement will not add any articles to the parliament’s regulations. In this trajectory, he expressed MDP’s side belief, that the court can provide instructions as to how to interpret the article in question.

Afeef noted that circumstances could arise where the deputy speaker is indisposed or has reason to recuse from presiding over the sitting. In consideration of such a circumstance, he stressed on the importance of identifying the next course of action.

MDP, citing the regulations does stipulate the course of action where the deputy speaker is unavailable, empahsized the whole parliament falls to a deadlock at this point.

“For an example, the deputy speaker dies amid these circumstances. Not that I wish this upon anyone. However, in case it happens, what has to be done next. Without the deputy speaker, the motion cannot proceed, nor an amendment can be made. This seals a deadlock,” he said.

Article 205 of the parliament’s regulation does not stipulate the course of action if the deputy speaker is unavailable to preside over a no-confidence motion against the speaker. Therewith, MDP, at the Supreme Court, has requested to establish leeway for the no-confidence motion to proceed even if it is achieved by a member other than the Deputy Speaker presiding over the sitting.

Justice Azmiralda Zahir then asked MDP to detail why they believe Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case.

Responding to the question, Afeef said the parliament’s works being at a standstill due to the no-confidence motion against the speaker being stalled is a loss to public interest.

Pointing out that the budget work is now at a standstill, which he cited as the parliamentary work linked mostly with public interest currently, Afeef said they were reasons a resolution can be sought from the Supreme Court.

In response to this, the state said the case was a constitutional case filed over differences of opinion in interpreting the parliament’s regulation.

“However, the case presently submitted is related to the interpretation of other law and the article in the parliament’s regulation and the interpretation of the parliament’s secretariate of the same, as the current circumstances does not fall under the concept of Article 88 (b), in light of the fact that is not an issue that a decision has been made directly on the parliament floor,” Attorney General’s Office’s Counsel General Fathimath Haleem had said.