Majlis amends rules to require vote before debating resolutions

Oct 27, 2026, 3:33 PM
A session of the People's Majlis -- Photo: People's Majlis

A session of the People's Majlis -- Photo: People's Majlis

The People’s Majlis has amended its Standing Orders to require a preliminary vote on resolutions before they can be opened for floor debate.

The amendment to Article 191 of the Standing Orders was proposed by independent MP Abdul Hannan Aboobakuru, who aligns with the ruling People's National Congress (PNC). The Majlis passed the amendment with 56 votes in favour, while 11 members voted against it.

During the review of the General Committee’s report on the amendment, MP Mohamed Ibrahim (Kudoo) of the Galolhu North constituency proposed a counter-amendment to remove the provision. However, this was defeated by the PNC majority.

Under the new rules, a vote to accept a resolution must be held prior to the commencement of the introductory debate. The amendment further stipulates that if a resolution fails to secure a majority of support in this initial vote, it will be rejected immediately.

Previously, the Standing Orders mandated that once a resolution was introduced to the Majlis, a vote on whether to accept it would only take place after the conclusion of the debate.

While the Standing Orders grant every member the right to submit resolutions to bring various issues to the parliament's attention, today’s change will restrict the opportunity for members to introduce and debate resolutions on the floor.

Comments

Read More

Latest News

Life imprisonment for treason under proposed amendments

The Maldivian government has proposed a bill to classify treason as a first-degree felony punishable by life imprisonment. The amendment defines treason as waging war or threatening national sovereignty and bars convicts from state office. This move fulfills a campaign pledge by President Muizzu to impose harsher penalties for betraying the nation.

New amendment criminalises "intentional acts" to harm the economy

The government is amending the Penal Code to criminalize "intentional acts" that harm the economy, with penalties of up to 10 years in prison. Critics argue the law aims to suppress opposition to major state projects like the Rasmalé deal. This move, alongside new media controls, raises significant concerns regarding freedom of expression.

Anti-religious sentiment to be criminalised

The Maldives government has introduced a bill to criminalize genocide and public incitement against religious or ethnic groups. While officially aimed at international compliance, critics fear the broad language will be used to suppress dissent and activism against the Rasmalé deal and Zionist interests.

MDP MPs urge public referendum over Rasmale' deal

MDP lawmakers are calling for a public referendum over a deal to grant 500 hectares of Rasmalé land to a foreign company on a 99-year lease. The opposition argues that such a significant transfer of territory requires direct citizen approval. They insist the public must have the final say on the project's long-term implications.

Four Bangladeshis arrested for smuggling 6kg drugs

Four Bangladeshi nationals were arrested in the Maldives for smuggling 6.75kg of synthetic cathinones via air cargo. The suspects were remanded in custody following a joint operation by police and customs. Separately, a Maldivian man was detained for ingesting 19 drug-filled capsules.

Amendment to allow home-schooling for children with disabilities

MP Anara Naeem introduced an amendment to the Education Act to allow free home-schooling for children with disabilities. The bill permits exemptions from physical school attendance based on a child's specific needs and established guidelines. It also clarifies that those unable to participate in any schooling are exempt from requirements.

Turkish firm ordered to pay MVR 25 million in unpaid taxes

The Maldives High Court ordered Turkish firm Turmaks to pay MVR 25 million in unpaid GST for materials used to build Tree Top Hospital. The court upheld MIRA's assessment, rejecting the company's claim that a verbal agreement shifted tax liability. The ruling emphasizes that the burden of proof for tax exemptions lies with the taxpayer.

Newsletter

Get the latest news delivered straight to your inbox