Supreme Court hearings in MDP's case over no-confidence motion conclude

Supreme Court, on Tuesday, concluded the hearings in the petition filed by MDP over the stalled no-confidence motion at the parliament against the speaker of the house. 

The hearings in the case began Monday. The hearings were held in two sessions yesterday during which the state, parliament, MDP, and the interveners presented their arguments. 

Former Attorney General Azima Shukoor, who was the lawyer for intervening PPM-PNC in the case, said the issue at hand was a matter of interpretation of the constitution and the regulations of the parliament. 

Representing the state on the case, Attorney General's Office Counsel Fathimath Haleem said that the case was constitutional as it involved differences of opinion in the interpretation of the rules. MDP seconded this argument. 

MDP, who filed the case, is asking Supreme Court 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 as 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. 

They said the Surpeme Court should advise on the way forward to save the parliament from falling into a deadlock. 

On the contrary, The Democrats argue that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to amend the parliament's regulations in the current dispute over the speaker’s no-confidence motion, and in otherwise circumstances. 

Their reasoning is that the Democrats believe that the Supreme Court adding anything to the parliament's regulations is changing them, which they said was unconstitutional and the Supreme Court does not have that power. 

However, MDP says the judgment will not add a new article to the regulations. 

Secretary General of the Parliament, Fathimath Niusha, then explained four ways in which the Parliament Secretariate could proceed with the matter. They are:

Under Article 108 (B) of the parliament's regulations, the General Committee of the Parliament shall, on its own initiative, can decide on an amendment to the regulations and submit it to the parliament floor. 

An ordinary member moving a resolution to amend the regulations of the parliament under Article 167 of the regulations

Moving an amendment to regulations as a motion under article 249 (B) of the parliament's regulation 

The parliament coming to a decision for this particular circumstance as Article 205 of the regulation does not detail how to proceed. 

The hearings in the case ended with Tuesday’s hearing, which lasted over two hours.

"I will conclude the hearings at this point. The court will try to reach a decision on the case as soon as possible," Justice Mahaz Ali Zahir, who chairs the bench presiding over the case said.

Nasheed’s motion was initially scheduled for last week’s last Sunday. However, the sitting was cancelled subsequent to Eva, Nasheed’s cousin and fellow Democrats member, calling in sick.

The no-confidence motion was on the agenda for all days except Tuesday of last week; none of which panned out as Eva had called in sick for all of them.

The sitting on the no-confidence motion was scheduled for a fifth time on Sunday morning. However, Eva recused from presiding over the sitting in light of the Supreme Court case last week, and also called in sick on Sunday.

Parliament Secretariate subsequently announced they will not be slating sittings on Nasheed’s motion pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.