MDP wants to table Nasheed motion for Muizzu inauguration

Ruling MDP told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the motion to remove Speaker Mohamed Nasheed should also be on the agenda for the swearing-in ceremony of president-elect Dr Mohamed Muizzu. The president-elect's PPM-PNC, however, opposed the move in the court.

Supreme Court on Tuesday held a second hearing in the constitutional petition filed by the MDP seeking an order that the parliament should proceed with the no-confidence motion against the speaker even in the absence of the deputy speaker. 

At the hearing, MDP lawyer Ahmed Abdulla Afeef said the MDP believes that Nasheed's no-confidence motion should tabled for the swearing-in ceremony as well.

"Good point, [the swearing-in] sitting can be held. There is no situation yet where the sitting cannot be held, so the sitting can be held. However, agenda number one should be to decide on the motion," he said.

Attorney General's Office Counsel Fathimath Haleem, who represents the state in the case, told the court on Monday that there was no obstacle to holding the swearing-in ceremony without deciding Nasheed's case.

Responding to the point, Afeef said:

Former Attorney General Azima Shukoor, who represents Muizzu's PPM-PNC, rejected Afeef's remarks. Azima also spoke against the MDP's motion to order the parliament not to hold another sitting without a decision on Nasheed's case.

"The petitioner's view or their belief is that this [Nasheed's dismissal issue] should be the first item on the agenda even at the swearing-in ceremony of the incumbent president-elect. My point is that there are certain rules in the Constitution to address each of these issues," she said.

"You cannot issue a second remedy [order for withholding any sitting without deciding on Nasheed's case] as you say."

Azima said:

Azima noted that extraordinary sittings of the parliament had been held despite the notice in the initial no-confidence motion against Nasheed expired.

"We think that when the no-confidence motion is moved, there is only one restriction within the constitutional framework. That is the restriction of chairing the sitting," Azima said.

Azima then pointed out that the constitution does not allow the speaker to be isolated from his responsibilities by moving a no-confidence motion.

"That means he's still in charge," she explained.