The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) strongly condemns the unconstitutional and undemocratic hijacking of the People’s Majlis in a deliberate attempt by the Speaker, President Mohamed Nasheed along with the Deputy Speaker, Eva Abdulla, and the Secretariat of the Parliament to thwart the no confidence Motion of the Speaker, signed by forty-nine members of the Parliament. The MDP has submitted the matter to the Supreme Court to seek a directive to enable the functioning of the parliament.

Today’s Parliament Sitting pertaining to the no confidence Motion of the Speaker was brought to a standstill by the Secretariat of Parliament citing ill-health of the Deputy Speaker who is the cousin of Speaker, President Mohamed Nasheed. This is the first time; an apparent conflict of interest persists for the Deputy Speaker as article 205 (e) of the Standing Orders of the Parliament restrict the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker to preside over the sittings of the parliament scheduled to deliberate upon their respective no confidence motions. Consequently, as one of the most fundamental principles of any parliamentary proceeding is to refrain from exercising undue powers by the members of the parliament during instances of conflict of interest, the refusal of the Deputy Speaker to recuse herself from the no confidence motion sitting of her cousin, Speaker President Mohamed Nasheed and subsequently thus, bringing to a halt the functioning of the parliament is irrefutably dishonourable and a complete violation of one of the most imperative moral pillars of the Standing Orders of Parliament and democratic principles.

Article 44 of the Standing Orders of the Parliament clearly ensures the continuity of the parliament. The Article stipulates that if neither Speaker nor the Deputy Speaker is available to preside over a parliamentary sitting to deliberate upon the no confidence motion of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker respectively, one of the five parliament members designated in accordance with Article 82 (b) of the constitution should be assigned to preside over the sitting. Nevertheless, the refusal of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the parliament secretariat to uphold the constitutional obligation of parliamentary continuity has led MDP to seek judicial remedies to uphold the constitution. The MDP had previously submitted amendments to the Standing Orders of the Parliament to prevent the misuse of parliamentary powers vested upon the Speaker and Deputy Speaker to unduly influence the continuity of the parliament. MDP condemns the deliberate refusal of the Speaker to schedule the amendments for deliberation to the plenary. Hence, having exhausted all parliamentary avenues, the MDP has called on the Supreme Court for guidance.