Supreme Court accepts case seeking to declare phrasing of the referendum question unconstitutional
The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to accept a case filed by former Kendhoo MP Ali Hussain regarding the constitutional timeframe for the ratification of bills.
Supreme Court. | RaajjeMV | RaajjeMV
The Supreme Court has accepted a case seeking to declare the phrasing of the question for the upcoming public referendum unconstitutional.
The case was submitted to the Supreme Court by legal counsels Ibrahim Shiyam and Aik Ahmed Easa. The Supreme Court has accepted the petition and officially registered the case.
However, the Supreme Court has yet to reach a decision on whether to accept the case filed by former Kendhoo MP Ali Hussain regarding the timeframe for the ratification of the bill. While two separate cases concerning the referendum have been submitted to the Supreme Court, both were filed simultaneously.
Regarding the issue raised concerning the referendum question, Ike stated that the current phrasing asks whether the 8th Amendment to the Constitution should be ratified. He noted that the amendment includes numerous details unrelated to the specific matters that legally require a public referendum. He further argued that the question should, in fact, focus directly on whether the citizens agree to shorten the parliamentary term.
He stated that the question, in its current form, fails to clarify what the public is voting for or what the potential outcome would be, adding that this ambiguity could lead to significant negative consequences for the nation.
According to the case submitted by attorney Ali Hussain, it is alleged that the ratification of the constitutional amendments violated the timeframe stipulated under Article 262 of the Constitution. Specifically, the amendments to the Constitution were forwarded to the President's Office for ratification on February 11.
According to Article 262 of the Constitution, any amendment passed to the Constitution must be ratified within a 15-day period. Ali Hussain stated that even when including public holidays in the count, this mandatory period has now expired.
Therefore, he stated that the bill is now void and that no vote should be conducted on an invalid piece of legislation. This is also the specific relief he has sought in the case filed with the Supreme Court.
