If the public wishes to prevent the government from making further mistakes, they must vote "no" in the referendum: Shiyam
The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no legal basis to halt the upcoming referendum, dismissing a case filed to block the vote. Following the verdict, the petitioner, lawyer Ibrahim Shiyam, urged citizens to vote "no," arguing that rejecting the referendum is essential to prevent further government misconduct and to safeguard the nation from potential harm.
Legal Counsel Ibrahim Shiyam. | RaajjeMV | Raajje MV
Legal expert Ibrahim Shiyam, who filed a constitutional case in the Supreme Court regarding the matter, has stated that if the public wishes to prevent the government from making further mistakes, they must vote "no" in the upcoming referendum.
Speaking on RaajjeTV’s "Noonekey" program, Shiyam stated that no compelling reasons have been presented to vote in favor of the referendum. He emphasized that, instead, there are only reasons to reject it.
Shiyam stated that if the public wishes to prevent the government from making further mistakes and seeks to avoid potential significant harm, it is crucial to say "no" in this vote.
If the public wishes to avoid further significant losses and prevent the government from causing additional damage in the future, it is essential to firmly say "no" this time.Legal Counsel Ibrahim Shiyam
Shiyam stated that several issues regarding the vote have come to light, noting that the case was filed in court due to these numerous concerns.
In its ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court determined that there are no legal grounds to obstruct the scheduled vote. Delivering the verdict, the Chief Justice noted that while certain circumstances mandate a referendum, others remain at the discretion of the authorities. The Chief Justice further clarified that in both instances, a presidential decree is required. He emphasized that the essential elements to be included in such a decree are clearly stipulated under Section 8 of the Referendum Act.
The Chief Justice stated that the ratification of the bill proposing the 8th Amendment to the Constitution will definitively change the term of the current Parliament. He further noted that the public must consent to the bill in its entirety. Therefore, he expressed that he does not view it as an issue for the President to seek the people's approval on the full scope of the proposed amendment.
Consequently, the judge stated that there is no legal basis to determine that a referendum cannot be held.
The other presiding judges have also expressed their support for the Chief Justice's opinion.
