Attorney General (AG) Ibrahim Riffath has stated that the Parliament's decision to reject the no-confidence motion against Speaker Mohamed Nasheed was unlawful.
In a tweet, AG Riffath said that the presiding member does not have the authority to reject the motion due to a point of order. He also said that the Parliament should continue the sittings without interruption as per Article 82 of the Constitution and Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament. He further said that allowing a member that is influenced by the speaker to preside over his no-confidence motion is a violation of Article 205(b) of the Rules of Procedure regarding conflict of interest.
As such, AG Riffath said that the sitting should not be presided over by a member who is influenced by the speaker or is in opposition to the no-confidence motion. He called on the secretary general to appoint a member and continue the sittings in accordance with the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure.
The main ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) submitted the no-confidence motion with 49 signatures on October 9. Speaker Nasheed is required to respond to the motion within 14 days of receiving the notice. However, the Parliament had cancelled the sittings after Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla filed for sick leave, stating that only the deputy speaker has the responsibility to preside over the no-confidence motion against the speaker.
Afterwards, 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.
The Parliament placed the no-confidence motion on the agenda for November 12 after the Supreme Court ruled that the motion can be voted on without the deputy speaker presiding over the sitting. However, the Parliament rejected the motion after The Democrats raised a point of order, claiming that it was proposed in violation of the parliamentary regulations.