The ongoing stalemate in Parliament over the no-confidence motion against Speaker Mohamed Nasheed persisted for a second day as Monday’s sitting was cancelled. The continued absence of Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla is cited as the reason.
The legislative body had been scheduled to decide on the no-confidence motion today, further raising concerns over the functionality of state institutions and casting a shadow on the upcoming presidential inauguration on 17 November.
Eva Abdulla, a member of Nasheed’s party, The Democrats, is recovering from dengue. She had also called in sick on Sunday, which led to the cancellation of the Parliament sitting where the motion was initially supposed to be discussed.
The Parliament Secretariat maintains that, under parliamentary procedures, sittings to impeach a speaker can only be presided over by the Deputy Speaker.
The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has strongly objected to this decision, filing a constitutional case with the Supreme Court. Ahmed Abdulla Afeef, a member of MDP’s legal team, stated in a press conference on Sunday that Secretary-General Fathimath Niusha’s decision was “unconstitutional and in violation of the Parliament’s Standing Orders.”
MDP is seeking two pivotal court rulings. Firstly, they want the court to enforce Article 44 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders, which states that an MP must be appointed to chair sittings in the absence of both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. Secondly, they insist that, according to Article 205(d) of the Standing Orders, Parliament cannot hold any other sittings until the no-confidence motion is resolved.
These developments come as President-elect Dr Mohamed Muizzu is set to take the oath of office on 17 November. Last week, MDP declared that it would not recognise the legitimacy of the oath if it were administered at a parliament sitting presided over by a speaker who had lost confidence of the parliament. The party has vowed to “do everything necessary to ensure there is no room to doubt the legitimacy of Muizzu’s inauguration.”
With this complex political backdrop, the Maldivian state faces a perilous juncture. The continuing impasse not only threatens the routine legislative process but also brings into question the constitutional integrity of the inauguration of the new president. Legal experts remain divided, and all eyes are now on the Supreme Court to provide a way forward.