The Supreme Court of Maldives on Monday ruled that not only the Deputy Speaker can preside over a sitting where a motion to remove the Speaker is being taken up and that the rules cannot be interpreted in such a way that the House may come to a standstill.

The apex court said that in the absence of the Speaker and The Deputy Speaker, the rules of the House state that the members can also proceed with the no-confidence motion against the Speaker. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that Nasheed’s removal from the parliament was not conducted illegally.

MDP filed the constitutional case in the Supreme Court after the no-confidence motion to remove Speaker Mohamed Nasheed was not taken up due to the absence of Deputy Speaker Eva Abdhulla. Stating that in cases where the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker cannot preside, MDP in the case stated that the five members who are required to be appointed under the rules of the House can preside.

Providing  legal solution, the judgment noted that there was no provision in the rules in which the five members could not preside.

Here are the decisions taken by the judges:

• The case is part of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
• A no-confidence motion against the Speaker can be moved in the absence of Deputy Speaker
•  The clause of members presiding over will apply in any situation
• Whule no-confidence motion is on agenda, a debate and passing something can only be put on hold
• Even if the no-confidence motion against the Speaker is not completed, the constitutional requirements must be taken up

Article 205B of the Rules of Parliament states that the Deputy Speaker shall preside over the decision-making process on the motion for removal of the Speaker. Since the rules clearly state that the Deputy Speaker will preside over a motion for removal of the Speaker or a sitting, even if the House house believes that no additional member can preside over such a resolution, it is not a correct interpretation as stated in the judgment.

The apex court said that while the rules provide space so that the Chair does not fall vacant, in this case too, the rules have to be interpreted with full consideration of other relevant clauses.

The matter is being heard by a five-judge bench in the Supreme Court, Justice Mahaz Ali Zahir chaired the bench. The other judges were Justice Husnu Suood, Justice Azmiralda Zahir, Justice Ali Rasheed and Justice Dr. Ibrahim Mohamed.