"No-confidence vote against Nasheed can be exercised even in the absence of Evaa"

Verdict hearing of the petition submitted by the main ruling party, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) at the Supreme Court, regarding the delay in proceeding the no-confidence motion against Mohamed Nasheed was held at the Supreme Court on Thursday.

Justice Mahaz Ali Zahir first delivered his opinion at the hearing on Thursday evening.

Mahaz also rejected three procedural objections filed by The Democrats. The party filed objections saying the case should not be heard by the Supreme Court.

Mahaz said the court will decide on three things. One is whether the parliament's decision not to conduct the session scheduled to move the impeachment motion was right or not.

Mahaz noted that according to Article 44 of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure, the motion must be placed on the agenda of the following session 14 days after the notice of no confidence is given.

The second matter to be decided by the court was whether the session can be conducted under Article 44 in the absence of the Vice-Speaker of the Parliament.

In the absence of the Vice-Speaker of the Parliament, the persons who will preside over the Parliament in accordance with Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament were appointed at the session held on 3 June 2019.

Mahaz explained the observations made when reading Rules 205 and 44 of the Rules of Procedure together.

The Justice noted that in the event of the Deputy Speaker being excused from presiding as provided in Rule 205 (e) of the Rules of Procedure, he found that the proceedings could continue under Rule 44.

He also stated that he does not believe it is in the spirit of the norms of procedure to adjourn the hearing until Eva returns to the Majlis sessions.

As such, he stated that he believes the Parliament's choice not to hold the scheduled session to move the resolution is illegal.

The third issue that the court must decide is whether the Majlis can hold debates or make decisions on other topics while a no confidence motion is pending.

Article 205 (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament states that no other business can be conducted while a motion of no confidence against the Speaker of the Parliament is pending. These include issues to be debated on and decided by the parliament.

Because the article states so, MDP has noted that the problem should be placed on the agenda of the new president's inauguration ceremony, as well.

However, the Attorney General's Office believes that there is no obstacle to the new president's inauguration ceremony, as this is not a topic that needs to be debated in the parliament.

Mahaz said the resolution should be moved in accordance with Rule 205 (c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament. He also noted that he does not see this issues being an obstacle to the new president's inauguration ceremony.

The bench comprised of Justice Mahaz Ali Zahir, Justice Ali Rasheed Hussain, Justice Azmiralda Zahir, and Justice Mohammed Ibrahim.

The Supreme Court, according to Justice Suoodh, is not the venue to settle political disputes. He believes that political concerns should be settled through dialogue.

The petition, according to Justice Suoodh, is a constitutional concern within the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.

He stated that there was no way to exclude Article 205 (d) from the scheme of other articles related to it. Therefore, the article should be read together to achieve the purpose of Article 82 (b) of the Constitution and Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, he said.

Suoodh said the no-confidence motion could be followed under Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure. However, on the point of taking other action while a no-confidence motion was being moved, Suoodh said he believed the relevant provision had been interpreted correctly.

The reason, he stated, is that it is not in the vision of the Parliament to halt its work.

As an example, he mentioned that the President-elect's inauguration is mandated by the Constitution.

Justice Azmiralda Zahir and Justice Ali Rashid Hossain supported the decision on the procedural points contained in Mahaz's opinion, the rules decided in three additional points and the matters stated in Justice Suoodh's opinion. Mahaz's opinion was also supported by Justice Mohammed Ibrahim.