Parliament speaker Mohamed Nasheed decided on Wednesday to seek a Supreme Court opinion to resolve a legal dispute over attorney general (AG) Ibrahim Riffath's written response to a no-confidence motion filed against him by the opposition.
The speaker adjourned proceedings to consult with political parties after MPs disagreed on whether the AG could respond in writing instead of appearing in person.
After the sitting resumed, Nasheed said a decision could not be made due to objections from the opposition Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), People's National Congress (PNC) and the Maldives National Party (MNP).
"In such matters, I have to seek [an advisory opinion]. What I wish is for the Supreme Court to decide on [the interpretation] when the constitution was drafted and such matters," Nasheed said.
titledesc
The no-confidence motion
The no-confidence motion against the AG was proposed over the alleged loss of Maldivian territorial waters in a border dispute with Mauritius. A new maritime boundary was demarcated between the Maldives and Chagos after the government conceded that the neighbouring archipelago belongs to Mauritius.
The motion was tabled in Wednesday's agenda and speaker Nasheed said that the AG has sent a response in writing. But the general affairs committee said that the AG would defend himself in parliament, Nasheed said.
Raising a point of order as Nasheed instructed the secretary general to read out the AG's response, Henveiru Hulhangu MP Hassan Latheef said that parliament lacked a procedure to follow when a cabinet minister responds in writing.
"The general affairs committee decided on the procedure to follow when the attorney general appears in parliament to speak in his defence. That is 10 minutes before the debate starts, 10 minutes in the middle of the debate whenever he chooses, and 10 minutes before the debate ends. A total of 30 minutes time. That is the procedure for responding here in person," he said.
The general committee has not decided on, honourable speaker, a procedure for reading out the document when a defence is submitted in writing.
A decision would have to be made by the general affairs committee to proceed with the motion, he said.
Nasheed accepted the point of order. The motion could not be continued in a manner that prevents the cabinet member from defending himself, he said.
MDP MPs object
Alifushi MP Mohamed Rasheed Hussain 'Bigey' objected to Nasheed's decision with a point of order. In cases where a cabinet minister does not appear in person, the common practice has been to follow the decision by the table office, the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP said.
But Nasheed said the AG needs to be informed about the lack of procedure.
"At the very least I need to tell the minister about this," he stated.
Ihavandhoo MP Mohamed Shifau from the MDP suggested consulting with the majority leader and minority leader to make a decision. Nasheed supported the proposal and adjourned the sitting for discussions.
After the motion was parked and Nasheed proceeded to other items on the agenda, MDP MPs expressed displeasure and criticised the speaker.
Maradhoo MP Ibrahim Shareef said that a Supreme Court advisory opinion could not be sought without a vote.
"The constitution states very clearly that if parliament is to seek an opinion, it must be passed by a majority of parliament. As it is stated so clearly I don't believe that an opinion could be sought without a decision by parliament," Shareef said.
There was no need to seek such an opinion as the AG could give up his right to defend himself on the no-confidence motion, he added.
Hanimaadhoo MP Abdul Gafoor Moosa said the speaker does not need to put the motion on hold after only consulting the opposition.
"A person not using a right he has, is not a reason for others to not do their work," he said.
Addu Meedhoo MP Rozaina Adam accused the speaker of delaying until after an opposition protest on the Chagos dispute takes place on Friday because the no-confidence motion would have been defeated today.
"Because the person in the speaker's chair believes that their protest could be affected if parliament votes for confidence in the minister, he wants to make sure by any means that the vote is not taken today by misusing his powers," she alleged.
