Speaker of Parliament Mohamed Nasheed is seeking an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court following disagreements after Attorney General (AG) Ibrahim Riffath responded to his no-confidence motion via a written response.
The no-confidence motion against AG Riffath was submitted with the signatures of 13 parliamentarians pertaining to the maritime dispute between the Maldives and Mauritius. The General Purpose Committee decided to provide two hours for debates and present 30 minutes for the AG to respond to the no-confidence motion.
Some parliamentarians expressed their disapproval after AG Riffath exercised his constitutional right by responding to the motion in a written response. Speaker Nasheed has since held discussions with political party leaders, which failed to solve the issue. He said that the non-majority parties and the committee believe that the AG should be present at the sitting when responding to the motion.
Additionally, Speaker Nasheed recalled previous no-confidence motions and said that in 2009, Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmed Shaheed had responded to a no-confidence motion while present at the Parliament, but that in 2013, AG Aishath Azima Shakoor failed to be present at a sitting or submit a written response for her no-confidence motion after citing ill health. He added that former Vice President Dr. Ahmed Jameel had also not submitted a written response to his no-confidence motion.
Furthermore, Speaker Nasheed said that the opposition coalition believes that AG Riffath only has the right to respond via a written response along with documentary evidence. He further said that he has decided to seek an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court in order to correctly interpret the Constitution when proceeding with the no-confidence motion.
Meanwhile, Riffath said that he submitted his written response within the constitutional authority given to the AG under Article 133 of the Constitution of the Maldives. He had given a detailed reply consisting of 37 points in his response.