Supreme Court OKs MDP’s case on Nasheed no-confidence motion

The Supreme Court has registered the case submitted by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) seeking its guidance, after accusing Speaker Mohamed Nasheed of “hijacking” the Parliament in order to thwart the no-confidence motion submitted against him.

In a post on X on Monday, MDP’s spokesperson Anas Abdul Sattar confirmed the court has accepted the case, and permitted the party to present its case.

The Parliament had been scheduled to hear the no-confidence motion submitted by the MDP against their former leader on Sunday, and again, on Monday. However, Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla, Nasheed’s cousin and fellow Democrats member, called in sick. She informed the Parliament that she was recovering from dengue, which she was diagnosed with last week.

Parliament’s Secretary General Fathimath Niusha decided sittings cannot be held without Eva there to chair it.

The decision drew sharp protest from MDP lawmakers, who filed a case with the Supreme Court, seeking a judicial remedy, on Sunday.

In a press conference on Sunday, Ahmed Abdulla Afeef, a member of MDP’s legal team, said the party found Niusha’s decision to be unconstitutional, and in violation of the Parliament’s Standing Orders.

MDP is seeking two key decisions.

First, the MDP has asked the court to establish that the Parliament is required to implement Article 44 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders, in a situation where the Deputy Speaker is unable to chair a sitting if a no-confidence motion is submitted against the Speaker.

Article 44 (a) dictates that in a situation where both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are indisposed of, the Speaker must appoint an MP to chair sittings in accordance with Article 82 (b) of the Constitution.

Next, the MDP asked the court to establish that the Parliament cannot hold any other sittings until work on the no-confidence motion is done.

The party referred to Article 205 (d) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders, which states that in a situation where a no-confidence motion is submitted against the Speaker, the Parliament cannot engage in debate or make a decision on any other work submitted until a decision is made on the motion, first.

The move comes with the President-elect Dr. Mohamed Muizzu set to take office on November 17.

Last week, the MDP parliamentary group said they refused to approve the oath taken by a president while a speaker who has lost all confidence grabs on to power through sheer force.

The party said they would do everything necessary to ensure there is no room to doubt the legitimacy of Muizzu’s inauguration.

The MDP had originally submitted no-confidence motions against both Nasheed and Eva earlier this year. The motion against Eva was submitted with the endorsement on 50 MPs in May, and the motion against Nasheed followed, with the endorsement of 54 MPs, in June.

But the MDP withdrew the motions in September, while the party was engaged in negotiations with the Democrats – the party to which both Nasheed and Eva belong – for the presidential runoff election.

The recent motion against Nasheed was submitted with the endorsement of 49 MPs on October 9.

The MDP parliamentary group convened for a meeting week, during which they passed a three-line whip to vote in favor of the motion.

The vote was unanimous.

The MDP holds a majority at the Parliament, with 56 MPs. 43 votes are required to pass the motion.