The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in its lawsuit against parliament over the cancelation of sittings after a no-confidence motion against Speaker Mohamed Nasheed was tabled in the agenda.
The five-judge panel that heard the case was unanimous in the judgment.
Delivering his opinion, Justice Mahaz Ali, who presided in the bench, declared that the Parliament Secretariat's decision that only the Deputy Speaker could preside over a sitting with the Speaker's impeachment on the agenda was unconstitutional.
Section 205(b) of parliament's rules state that the Deputy Speaker must preside over a sitting with a decision on the impeachment of the Speaker on the agenda.
The provision does not specify how to proceed if the Deputy Speaker is unable to preside.
With Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla on sick leave for over a week, Nasheed's impeachment remained stalled as the Secretariat canceled sittings with reference only to section 205(b).
But the MDP argued that another MP besides the Deputy Speaker could also preside over sittings.
The party referred to section 44 of parliament's rules, which states that five MPs must be assigned to preside in the absence of both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.
The MDP petitioned the Supreme Court to declare that the cancelation of sittings after Nasheed's impeachment was tabled in the agenda violated both section 44 of parliament's rules and article 82(c) of the constitution.
Aside from Justice Mahaz Ali, the five-judge bench included Justice Husnu Suood, Justice Azmirelda Zahir, Justice Ali Rasheed and Justice Dr. Ibrahim Mohamed.
The Democrats and the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) intervened in the case as third parties.
Both Speaker Nasheed and Deputy Speaker Eva are members of The Democrats, which is now the minority party in parliament.
President-Elect Dr. Mohamed Muizzu, who is due to take office on November 17, belongs to the PPM-PNC coalition, which has nine MPs in parliament.
