Supreme Court: Nasheed no-confidence motion halted in violation of law

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the decision by the Parliament to halt the no-confidence motion against Speaker Mohamed Nasheed was unlawful.

The no-confidence motion submitted by the MDP against their former leader has remained stymied, with Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla, Nasheed’s cousin and fellow Democrats member, unavailable to chair sittings, citing poor health.

The MDP lodged a constitutional case with the Supreme Court over the issue on October 29. Both the Democrats and PPM-PNC intervened in the case, citing a vested interest in the case.

The court delivered its judgement in the case on Thursday.

It said that given the Parliament’s Standing Orders declares that a select group of MPs may chair sittings in a situation where both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are indisposed of, the Parliament should have processed the no-confidence motion against Nasheed.

The court therefore found the Parliament’s decision not to hold the sitting to hear the motion unlawful.

Article 205 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders dictate that in situations where a no-confidence motion has been submitted against the Speaker, sitting must be presided over by the Deputy Speaker. It does not offer a solution to a situation where the Deputy Speaker is indisposed of.

The MDP had asked the court to establish that the Parliament is required to implement Article 44 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders, which offers guidance on holding general sittings in a situation where both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are indisposed of.

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.

However, Parliament’s Secretary General Fathimath Niusha decided the no-confidence motion against Nasheed cannot be held without Eva, citing that she does not believe the rule applies in such a situation.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court’s bench unanimously agreed that other MPs can also chair sittings to hear the no-confidence motion in accordance with the rule.

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 motion was initially tabled for October 26, after the 14-day notice period. But Eva called in sick all through last week, thwarting the motion.

This week, Eva recused herself from chairing sitting citing the case submitted to the Supreme Court. And the Parliament decided against tabling the motion until the court issues its judgement.