The Supreme Court has officially accepted a constitutional petition submitted by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), which seeks to ensure that no parliamentary session can be held without addressing the no-confidence motion against Speaker Mohamed Nasheed.
In the recent parliamentary sessions on Sunday and Monday, the no-confidence motion couldn’t proceed due to Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla’s absence. Parliamentary procedures dictate that the Deputy Speaker presides over the no-confidence motion against the Speaker, making her absence a significant obstacle.
An official from the Supreme Court has confirmed that the court registrar has decided to take on this case, which the MDP also announced. The MDP’s legal team held a press conference to explain the constitutional case, stating that the primary reason for filing the case was the alleged misinterpretation of parliamentary rules by the Secretary General.
The case has been filed for two main purposes: to ensure that the parliament secretariat adheres to Article 44 of the parliamentary rules in the event of the Deputy Speaker’s absence during a no-confidence motion against the Speaker, and to mandate that no further parliamentary sessions take place until a decision is reached on Nasheed’s case.
Article 44 of the parliamentary rules outlines the procedure when both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker cannot preside over a session. In such cases, the Speaker appoints a member to preside, and five members who have served the longest continuous period in the parliament are designated for this role. The order of appointment depends on their tenure and, if equal, their age. If no member is appointed in advance or if the five designated members are unable to preside, the next longest-serving member takes over.
