Court petition not to undermine parliament authority, MDP says
“Therefore, we do not believe that the Supreme Court's decision in this case has in any way interfered with the jurisdiction of the Parliament or their work".
Top Stories
By
Mohamed Muzayyin Nazim
The MDP said on Sunday it had filed a motion in the Supreme Court seeking legal remedy for the no-confidence motion against the Speaker of the Parliament as there was no other way to resolve the issue.
The motion signed by 49 MDP MPs to remove Nasheed from office was tabled for Sunday's sitting of Parliament.
-
According to the rules, Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla should preside over the matter; according to the rules, no one else can preside over the meeting
-
However, "due to illness" Eva did not attend Sunday's sitting; So the sitting was not held
-
The MDP filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking legal remedies and two orders
"This party does not like to delegate parliamentary powers at all. However, sometimes there is no other way [than going to court] in these types of cases," responding to a question from a journalist at a press conference held by MDP after the case was submitted to the court, Ahmed Abdulla Afeef, a member of the legal team, said.
"Envisioning such a situation, the law has the power, especially the Supreme Court, to show the way forward in these types of cases."
When asked by reporters repeatedly whether they believed this was a subordination of the courts to the powers of the parliament, the legal team said they did not believe so.
"This is not a decision of the parliament. This is the decision of an administrative person working in the parliament. We are not going with a decision of the parliament. We are going to find a way to continue the work of the parliament," Afeef said.
Afeef, who also served as the Legal Counsel at the President's Office until his dismissal last year, said:
-
They filed the case for obstructing the implementation of the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament
“Therefore, we do not believe that the Supreme Court's decision in this case has in any way interfered with the jurisdiction of the Parliament or their work,” Afeef said.
“I do not believe that the verdict in this case will detract from anything that the Constitution requires Parliament to do,” Afeef said.
The MDP has a clear majority in parliament with 55 MPs. When asked why the rules are not being amended to resolve the issue instead of going to court, the party's legal team member Ahmed Mauroof said:
-
They believe that there is no deficiency in the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure; The problem is that the provisions are misinterpreted by the parliamentary administration
-
This is not a situation that is not in the rules of parliament; Under Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, another member shall preside in the absence of the Deputy Speaker
"Some efforts have been made [in the past] to amend the rules. But as you know, the president has the power to do a lot of things in Parliament, especially the agenda. Due to such issues, the work was stalled," said Maurouf, who is also the under-secretary in the president's office.
The two main requests made by the MDP to the Supreme Court in this case are:
-
To provide that the Office of the Speaker shall be obliged to comply with Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure in the event of the Deputy Speaker's absence from a session to schedule a motion of no confidence in the Speaker
-
No other session of Parliament can be held until a decision is taken on Nasheed's case.
Related
Related
MPs blackmailed to resign Nasheed's confidence motion: Ilyas
Nasheed's confidence motion can proceed in Eva's absence: SC
MDP wants to table Nasheed motion for Muizzu inauguration
