The Supreme Court has concluded its hearings on the Constitutional case on the no-confidence motion against Speaker of Parliament Mohamed Nasheed.
During the hearings, the Attorney General's Office (AGO) and the Secretariat of the Parliament were given the opportunity to give their statement. The parties that were allowed to intervene also gave their statement, including the opposition coalition of the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) and the People's National Congress (PNC) as well as Speaker Nasheed's party, The Democrats.
The main ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) submitted the Constitutional case over the stalled no-confidence motion, accusing the Parliament of violating the parliamentary regulations. MDP cited Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, which states that the Speaker shall appoint the longest serving member to preside over a sitting in the absence of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, in accordance with Article 82(b) of the Constitution.
During the hearings, the State, MDP, and the PPM/PNC coalition agreed that the longest serving member should preside over a no-confidence motion against the Speaker in the absence of the Deputy Speaker. They argued that it is the normal policy for the longest serving member to preside over sittings. As such, MDP requested the Supreme Court to permit the longest serving member to preside over the motion, emphasising that parliamentary work cannot proceed otherwise. The State also supported this request, stating that the case stems from a difference in the interpretation of the rules.
However, the Counsel General of the Parliament Fathimath Filza said that only the Deputy Speaker can preside over a no-confidence motion against the Speaker, adding that the regulations will need to be amended for another member to be allowed to preside over such a sitting. She also said that there is no reason why the Parliament should halt its work, as the motion has not yet been tabled.
Moreover, the PPM/PNC coalition's attorney said the case is a matter of interpretation of the Constitution and the parliamentary regulations. Meanwhile, The Democrat's attorney stated that the case should not have been filed at the Supreme Court, expressing belief that the issue can be resolved within the Parliament.
Concluding the hearings, Justice Mahaz Ali Zahir said the bench will begin work to give its ruling on the case as soon as possible. However, no specific date has been given.