Democrats to intervene in MDP's constitutional petition over Nasheed confidence motion

The Democrats, led by speaker Mohamed Nasheed, said on Tuesday that the party will intervene in the Supreme Court motion filed by the ruling MDP to declare that no other sitting of parliament can be held without a decision on the no-confidence motion against the speaker.

The issue of Nasheed's impeachment was on the agenda for this week's sessions of Parliament, but the issue could not be taken up this week as Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla, who is supposed to preside over the session, is on leave. Meanwhile, MDP members are expressing their dissatisfaction and protesting in the parliament.

MDP had filed a constitutional case in the Supreme Court on Sunday to seek a legal remedy. The case was accepted by the court on Monday.

Speaking at a press conference held by The Democrats at the Parliament on Tuesday to condemn MDP's attempts to disrupt the proceedings of the parliament, Azim said MDP is working with the intention of imposing various sanctions on President-elect Dr Mohammed Muizzu and the government he will form.

He believes that the MDP is trying to "balk the next government".

Azim said the MDP has filed a petition in the Supreme Court. Therefore, he believes that the The Democrats should intervene.

"I think, all of us members should, in fact, since they filed a lawsuit against the parliament. So, we have to intervene in that. I certainly will," he said.

According to the Rules of Procedure, the Deputy Speaker is required to preside over the no-confidence motion against the Speaker. In the absence of the Deputy Speaker, the rules of the parliament do not specify what to do next. Therefore, the decision of the Secretary General Fathmath Niusha was that no one other than Eva could preside over the meeting.

However, the MDP did not accept Niusha's decision. The MDP argued that Secretary General’s decision to have the Deputy Speaker of Parliament directly preside over the case is unconstitutional, and that Secretary General has misinterpreted the relevant provisions”.

The MDP filed a petition in the court asking: