Claiming that combining two elections is intended to reduce costs is as absurd as claiming one can stay dry while submerged in the sea: Ali Hussain

Former Member of Parliament and legal expert Ali Hussain has criticized the proposed constitutional amendment to hold presidential and parliamentary elections simultaneously, arguing that the move is not genuinely intended to reduce costs. He likened the justification to someone claiming they cannot dry off while remaining submerged in the sea.

Speaking at a panel discussion regarding the referendum vote, Ali Hussain questioned the government's underlying motives for seeking these constitutional changes.

Ali Hussain stated that if the government genuinely intends to reduce state expenditure, there are far simpler and more effective methods available. He noted that merging the Ministry of Higher Education with the Ministry of Education could save one billion Rufiyaa over five years, and a similar amount could be saved by consolidating the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Fisheries. Furthermore, he argued that while billions could be saved by cutting administrative costs of state offices and reducing spending on state media, the claim that elections are being synchronized solely to reduce costs remains unconvincing.

By merging the Ministry of Higher Education and the Ministry of Education, we could save 1 billion MVR over a five-year period. Similarly, by reverting the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Fisheries to their previous combined structure and streamlining staff, another 1 billion MVR could be saved over five years. Furthermore, the 200 million MVR currently spent annually on renting office spaces for state operations would result in a total saving of 1 billion MVR over five years. Additionally, more than 1 billion MVR could be saved over five years by reducing the expenditure on state media operations. There are numerous measures available if there is a genuine intent to cut costs. Therefore, I simply cannot accept the current situation.

Attorney-at-Law Ali Hussain

Speaking on the constitutional amendment process, Ali Hussain stated that any action mandated by the Constitution to be completed within a specific timeframe must be concluded accordingly. He further noted that the 15-day period stipulated for the ratification of the current proposed amendments has already expired. Consequently, he stated that he no longer considers the bill to be valid.

Regarding the political motives behind these amendments, Ali Hussain stated that they appear to be a strategic move to bolster the incumbent president’s chances of securing a second term. He further alleged that this plan involves ratifying amendments to eliminate the second round of presidential elections and to disqualify individuals over the age of 65 from contesting.

In my view, the sole purpose of introducing this amendment is that the current President perceives it as his only path to re-election. I believe this change is being pursued because it paves the way for subsequent amendments—such as allowing individuals over the age of 65 to contest and transitioning to a single-round presidential election system—which are seen as the only means for him to secure a victory. This is by no means an effort to reduce costs. If the genuine intention were to cut expenditures, there are numerous other measures that could effectively be taken.

Attorney-at-Law Ali Hussain

Describing the President as the "Super CEO" of all state-owned enterprises, Ali Hussain noted that a completely different landscape emerges when heading into an election with 80 or 90 aligned Members of Parliament, backed by the full power and influence of the state and control over the media. He also expressed concern that such shifts would eliminate the opportunity to hold the government accountable.