The Democrats have decided to intervene in the constitutional case submitted to the Supreme Court of Maldives seeking to invalidate the sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives, which was passed in violation of the Constitution.
The case to invalidate the amendment to the Constitution, which was passed last week and results in the loss of membership even if members of parliament cross the floor or are expelled from their party, was submitted to the Supreme Court by former MP for Kendhoo constituency and lawyer Ali Hussain.
Such a case has been filed at a time the public, members, and legal experts are expressing great concern regarding the constitutional amendment. The bill passed by the People’s Majlis on Wednesday was ratified by President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu the same day and has since been published in the government gazette and come into effect.
In a statement announcing their intervention in the case, the Democrats said that while they principally support anti-defection or the loss of a parliamentary seat when a member changes parties, the sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives which was hastily passed within about four hours after being submitted to the People's Majlis by the government, undermines the power and purpose of the People's Majlis.
They also stated that it goes against numerous concepts of the Constitution and especially violates the basic structure doctrine which protects the fundamental features and framework of the Constitution. Therefore, the Democrats have decided to intervene in the constitutional case submitted to the Supreme Court of Maldives by Ali Hussain seeking to invalidate the law.
The Democrats have revealed the main reasons why they believe the amendment was passed in violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives.
These include:
- The amendment brings an end to the clear separation of the three powers of the state as designed in the Constitution for a presidential democracy or presidential system, bringing the People's Majlis directly under the control of the president, therefore abolishing one of the most fundamental features envisioned by the Constitution; a system of government with separated powers, and violating the provision stating that all state powers originate from and remain with the people.
- It strips away the powers clearly stated in the Constitution as powers of the People's Majlis, including all legislative powers, oversight and accountability of the government, and in addition, an important concept of the Constitution which is the freedom of MPs to advocate on behalf of the country and its people, along with the privileges directly guaranteed by the Constitution to ensure this, such that no investigation, prosecution or trial can be conducted against any member for anything said or any vote given in the parliament, bringing the continuity and termination of these elected positions under the power of an appointed disciplinary committee of a political party.
- In a situation like the present one, where the number of members belonging to one political party exceeds the minimum number required to hold a session of the People's Majlis, if for any reason the leadership or disciplinary committee of that party decides to expel all the members or enough members to prevent the quorum for holding a parliament sitting, the entire system could come to a halt, plunging the country into a legal vacuum, providing an opportunity for a single political party to seize all powers of the state.
The Democrats noted that in addition to these three reasons, and the fact that the possibility of a political party being able to remove a member's seat was not an open option when members were elected for the current term of the People's Majlis, and that this amendment also lacks a clear statement regarding the current term's MPs leaving room for general interpretation, as well as several other issues that conflict with and alter the basic features and structure of the Constitution, their legal team is working on the necessary steps to intervene in the constitutional case now submitted to the Supreme Court regarding the matter.
