Supreme Court: Nasheed motion should not deter Muizzu’s inauguration

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that even if the no-confidence motion against Speaker Mohamed Nasheed is hindered, it should not deter the upcoming inauguration of President-elect Dr. Mohamed Muizzu.

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.

Delivering the verdict, Justice Mahaz Ali Zahir said that the bench unanimously agreed that a delay in the no-confidence motion does not prevent the Parliament from doing work required of it under the Constitution and the Parliament’s Standing Orders.

He referred to Article 205 (c) and (d) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders.

Article 205 (c) stipulates that a no-confidence motion against the Speaker must be presented at a sitting held in the first working day after the notice period expires.

And, Article 205 (d) stipulates that once the motion is presented, no debate or decision must be made on any other work submitted to the Parliament.

Mahaz said that the two clauses cannot be separated, and that the Parliament is legally obligated to follow the provisions.

“I do not believe such a decision would diminish the Constitution’s superiority over the Parliament’s Standing Orders in any manner. In a situation where a no-confidence motion is submitted against the Parliament Speaker in accordance with Article 205 (a) and Article 205 (b) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders, I do not believe it creates room for an additional constitutional debate, with the President-elect unable to take his oath of office due to a delay in application of Article (c) and (d) [of the Parliament’s Standing Orders,” he said.

He said that things the Parliament is mandated to carry out under the Constitution takes precedence over the Parliament’s Standing Orders.

He referred to Article 114 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the Parliament must hold a sitting to the President-elect and Vice President-elect take their oath of office.

The court has also ruled that the Parliament’s decision to halt the no-confidence motion against Nasheed had been unlawful.