Speaker of the People’s Majlis has denied the opportunity to submit an emergency motion aimed at addressing the alleged negligence towards individuals arrested during the October 3 protest and currently held in state custody.

The motion was submitted by MP for Kendhoo constituency Mauroof Zakir, who sought to bring the matter before the parliament under Article 192(a) of the Rules of Procedure. The motion argued that the state had failed to uphold constitutional protections and legal obligations in its treatment of detainees arrested during the peaceful protest held by the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) on the night of October 3 in Malé City.

Citing several constitutional provisions, the motion referenced Article 17, which guarantees equal enjoyment of rights and freedoms without discrimination; Article 18, which obliges the state to protect and promote those rights; and Article 20, which affirms equal protection and benefit of the law for all individuals. The motion also referred to Article 54, which prohibits cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, and to the Anti-Torture Act, which criminalizes such acts under Maldivian law.

According to the motion, six individuals arrested during the protest remain in custody at Dhoonidhoo Custodial Jail, where some are reportedly suffering from physical injuries allegedly sustained during arrest. It further claimed that basic rights, including timely medical treatment and access to necessary medication, have been withheld. The families of the detainees have reportedly raised repeated concerns over the lack of access to essential care and communication.

The motion also criticized the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) for its inaction, despite its mandate to investigate such allegations.

Despite the motion raising concerns of public interest, the speaker refused its submission, citing procedural requirements under Article 197 of the Rules of Procedure. The speaker ruled that the motion was not based on verified facts, pointing out that the claims of injuries, denial of medical care, and delays in treatment had not been substantiated by the submitting member.

When challenged on procedural grounds, the speaker maintained that the decision aligned with parliamentary regulations and dismissed a point of order raised by MP Mauroof, asserting that the requirements for submitting urgent motions had not been met.

The incident comes amid heightened political tension following the protest, and as scrutiny increases over the treatment of detainees and the role of independent institutions in safeguarding human rights.