Proposal to shorten the term of the current Parliament and revert to its previous duration is legally invalid and inconsistent: Ibrahim
Ibrahim Ismail, the chair of the committee that drafted the Constitution, has stated that the proposed constitutional amendment to synchronize presidential and parliamentary elections is legally contradictory.
Ibrahim Ismail, who served as the Chair of the Drafting Committee during the formulation of the Constitution, during an interview with RaajjeTV – February 28, 2025. | RaajjeMV | RaajjeMV
Ibrahim Ismail, who served as the chair of the committee that drafted the current Constitution, has stated that the proposal to shorten the term of a sitting parliament and hold elections, only to revert to the original term length thereafter, is legally invalid and illogical.
In a post on X, Ibrahim stated that he is waiting to see what legal experts have to say regarding the matter. He noted that the referendum proposed to determine public opinion on holding presidential and parliamentary elections simultaneously does not fall within the scope of Article 262 of the Constitution.
He questioned whether the proposed constitutional amendment is legally permissible under the Constitution. In a social media post, he stated that the bill intended for a public referendum does not align with the legal framework and intent of Article 262.
Article 262 (b)(2) of the Constitution states: "Article 79 (a) of the Constitution (Term of the People's Majlis)." Article 79 (a) stipulates: "The term of the People's Majlis shall be five years from the date of its first sitting following the general election..." Ibra stated in his post.
He further clarified that Article 262 specifically governs changes to the parliamentary term. Accordingly, he noted that if the term of the People’s Majlis were to be amended from five years to a different duration, the revised term would become the established standard following the amendment.
He further stated that a public referendum should present only a single question, to which there should be only one definitive answer.
"What is the actual question being posed here? Is the parliamentary term four and a half years or five years? Proposing to shorten the term of a sitting parliament, hold an election, and then revert to the original term length is a legally invalid and inconsistent proposal," Ibrahim stated.
He also called upon any prominent legal expert to provide an alternative interpretation of this amendment.
