The political gameplay surrounding the no-confidence motion against the Speaker of Parliament, former President Mohamed Nasheed, has cast a dark shadow over state affairs, raising concerns of a possible shutdown of both the executive and legislative branches.
The legislative branch is already in limbo, as parliamentarians failed to proceed with the no-confidence motion initially scheduled for Sunday’s sitting. The Parliament Secretariat informed MPs that the sitting was cancelled due to the absence of Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla, who is on sick leave.
According to parliamentary rules, the Deputy Speaker should preside over impeachment proceedings and, no other issue can take precedence over a no-confidence motion against a speaker.
Nasheed, who belongs to The Democrats—a breakaway faction of the majority Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)—was appointed as Speaker in May 2019 by the then MDP’s 65-member ‘super-majority’ parliamentary group. Tensions between the MDP and The Democrats have resulted in nearly a year of parliamentary disputes and delays.
The majority-holding MDP insists that parliamentary proceedings should only resume once Nasheed’s impeachment has been addressed. In response, The Democrats have threatened to obstruct the passage of the supplementary budget required to run state affairs for the rest of the year.
Complicating matters further, the MDP maintains that the Oath of Office for incoming President Dr Mohamed Muizzu will not be legally valid if administered at a parliament sitting presided over by Speaker Nasheed while the no-confidence motion against him remains pending.
The current situation has added complexity to executive affairs, heightening the risk of a shutdown of both legislative and executive branches if the impeachment is not resolved before Muizzu’s swearing-in on 17 November.
Legal experts are divided on the issue. While some, such as former Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhsin, view the MDP’s stance as an impediment to government functions, others, including former Attorney General Diyana Saeed, argue that the MDP is upholding democratic principles by insisting on resolving the no-confidence motion first.
Following the cancellation of Sunday’s sitting, MDP has decided to petition at the Supreme Court to issue a ruling on how to proceed with legislative affairs in the absence of the Deputy Speaker. While parliamentary procedures stipulate that the Deputy Speaker must preside over the sitting involving a no-confidence motion against the Speaker, they do not provide clear guidance on who should preside in the absence of the Deputy Speaker.
MDP is seeking to resolve this ambiguity through the Supreme Court, as regular sittings of Parliament can be presided over by a group of the five most senior parliamentarians if the Deputy Speaker is absent.