Parliament rejects Eva excusing from Nasheed motion until SC ruling on MDP petition

Parliament on Sunday rejected deputy speaker Eva Abdulla's decision to excuse herself from presiding over the no-confidence motion against Speaker Mohamed Nasheed until the Supreme Court delivers its ruling on the constitutional petition filed by MDP over the deadlock.

After being on leave since the no-confidence motion was scheduled over a week ago, Eva sent a letter to the Secretary General of Parliament Fathimath Niusha on Saturday saying she believed the MDP had moved the petition in the Supreme Court because the majority party saw it important for the apex court to issue a ruling on the matter. The parliament's actions in a manner that overshadows the outcome of a case in court will have an impact on the case in court, she said.

In a response letter, Niusha told Eva that the MDP had filed the petition seeking two main orders:

The MDP's petition and the no-confidence motion under Article 205 of the parliament's rules of procedure are two different matters, Niusha said.

“Therefore, the secretary general has requested the deputy speaker to preside over the sitting where the no-confidence motion against the speaker is tabled,” parliament secretariat's communications director Hassan Ziyau said.

Nasheed's no-confidence motion was on the agenda for all the sittings scheduled for last week, but the matter could not be taken up as deputy speaker Eva Abdulla, who is required to preside over the sitting, was on leave. Thursday's sitting was also canceled due to Eva's absence, and the motion was again tabled for a fifth time for Sunday's sitting. 

Supreme Court has accepted the constitutional petition filed by MDP seeking an order that no other sitting of the parliament can be held without a decision on the no-confidence motion against speaker Mohamed Nasheed. The court is set to hear the petition on Monday.

According to the rules of procedure of the parliament, the deputy speaker is required to preside over the no-confidence motion against the speaker.

MDP has said the main reason for filing the case was that the decision of the secretary general that only the deputy speaker could preside over a sitting that deliberates the non-confidence motion against the speaker was unconstitutional. The secretary general has misinterpreted the relevant provisions of the rules of procedure of the parliament, the party had said.

The case was filed for two main reasons, the party said:

Article 44 of the rules of procedure of the parliament sets out the procedure to be followed in the event of the speaker and deputy speaker being excused from presiding over the session. Accordingly, the article states: