The Supreme Court has accepted MDP’s constitutional petition seeking to declare that the last Parliament session was held illegally and that no other parliament sitting could be held without a decision on the no-confidence motion put forward by the ruling MDP.
MDP has moved to the Supreme Court to remove Nasheed from the chair. The parliament rules state that the no-confidence motion against the speaker should be taken up in a sitting chaired by the Deputy Speaker of the parliament.
While the no-confidence motion against the Speaker of the Parliament was scheduled for yesterday, MDP members protested against the parliament office’s decision to conclude the session for the dasy, damaging the belongings of the administrative staff
With Deputy Speaker Eva Abdhulla going for leave, Parliament minority party, Democrats say the speaker can’t preside over a no-confidence motion against the speaker. As per the rules of the House, the no-confidence motion against the Speaker of the House has to be taken up in a sitting chaired by the Deputy Speaker of the House.
In its constitutional petition to the Supreme Court, MDP has sought that the court decide on two things.
First, in cases where the Deputy Speaker of the House is unable to proceed with the issue of removal of the Speaker, it should be declared that the session can be held in accordance with Article 44 of the Rules of Parliament.
Article 44A of the Rules of Parliament provides that in cases where the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker are unable to preside, there are five members of the House to preside. Meetings should be allowed to be chaired on the basis of their seniority.
MDP’s second appeal to the Supreme Court is to ensure that the Speaker cannot attend any other business of the house unless a decision is taken in the no-confidence motion.
Speaking at a press conference held by MDP’s lawyers yesterday, Ahmed Abdhulla Afif, former legal counsel at the President’s Office, said yesterday’s parliament session was not concluded as per the constitution or parliamentary rules. He said it was not a rule in parliamentary practice to stall parliament proceedings.
Parliament cannot be stopped. Parliament is not even a place to be dissolved. I don’t think parliament can interpret laws and regulations in such a way that it cannot function.
Afif said.
Referring to the parliamentary body’s claim that there is no provision in the rules of the house to act if the Deputy Speaker is not allowed to attend the meeting in the event of the speaker’s removal, Afif said its not the right interpretation.
He added that article 44A of parliament has what needs to be done in such a situation. This is because in cases where the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker are unable to preside, there are five members of the House to preside.
