The Supreme Court has concluded hearings on the opposition’s case demanding that the seven cabinet ministers rejected by the opposition-majority parliament step down from office, but has yet to have announced a date to deliver the verdict.
Minister of Fisheries Dr Ibrahim Didi, Minister of Education Dr Mustafa Luthfy, Minister of Defence Ameen Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr Ahmed Shaheed, Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad, Minister of Finance Ali Hashim and Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Shihab had their reappointments rejected in parliament last week after the endorsement vote was boycotted by the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).
The issue of cabinet endorsements had derailed parliament for the previous three weeks on points of order, placing the 2011 Budget in jeopardy of being submitted and passed before the final session of parliament for the year.
Dr Sawad told Minivan News today that the government’s argument was based on the fact that the Maldives had a “unique” constitutional process, and that the process of appointing ministers was not comparable with countries such as the United States.
In the Maldives, Dr Sawad said, “the President has the executive power to appoint Cabinet Ministers. There is a clear separation of powers.”
“If the interpretation is that by a simple majority any appointed minister can be removed from his position, that means that with parliament’s quorum of 20, 11 MPs can vote against cabinet and have ministers removed despite the constitution’s very detailed no confidence procedure,” he said. “If [ministers can be removed] by a simple sitting majority, it will lead to serious instability.”
Dr Sawad added that “any interpretation [of the Constitution] that facilitates such instability in the political system is a very serious threat to our nation.”
The issue of ministerial appointments within parliament has raised concerns among some MPs that current rulings are insufficient for the Maldives’ highly partisan political environment, particularly in relation to the Majlis.
Kuludufushi-South Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed last month claimed that constitutional changes within the Supreme Court will be required to address the nation’s ongoing political deadlock over cabinet ministers.
(0)Dislikes
(0)Related Posts
‘Drug trafficker’ acquitted on lapses highlighted in former president’s trial- Only three judges trained on new penal code
- Majlis shutdown to ‘block changes to new penal code’
- UN urged to condemn guideline for human rights watchdog
- Translation: Supreme Court v. HRCM
- Government defends Supreme Court’s HRCM ruling
it is hard to understand any valid reason behind this rejection of ministers appointed. We all know it is solely for political reasons and yet we want the court to decide. Is this how democracy works!!!??
@ ibrahim Mohamed
"We all know it is solely for political reasons"
The reason is valu dhoraashi, i guess? They have to use the main gate.
There is no need for constitutional changes, unless we wanted to include every single part of the approval process in the constitution. Already our constitution is incredibly detailed.
All the Supreme Court needs to do is outline what was done constitutionally, and what wasn't. In this case, the law is quite simple. It is not convoluted. It is not nearly as twisted as people suggest it to be.
And it is also not a vote of no confidence. It is part of the approval process when someone is first appointed. Once a minister has been given approval, they cannot be dismissed except by a vote of no confidence.
I agree with Salim.
This is part of the approval process. Elimination is something that comes only AFTER approval.
So the 2/3 majority is a nonsensical excuse used by the government.
The ministers may have been wearing their suits and going to office every day for the past several months. But they are not parlaiment APPROVED ministers. Therefore they cannot be regarded as ministers.
Constitution clearly says ministers have to be approved by the parliamet. before approval they are simply nominated ministers.
My only complain is that this is a situation that was unnecessarily created.
What's all this fuss, one wonders? The Supreme Court in its first judgement said that Ministers are appointed by the President and not nominated to parliament. Perhaps Salim has the US in mind, where Secretaries remain nominees until confirmed by Congress. If the parliament does not give its consent, the president can re-submit the same names to the parliament for re-consideration, unless the parliament can prove that a Minister so appointed does not meet the eligibility criterion or criteria specified in the Constitution. When in Rome, one should do as Rome requires, not as Washington requires.
Lenin.. my problem is the Special Majlis, when they went for the referendum on the form of government said that if chose a presidential system the constitution will follow the US style. And if you do have a look at the minutes of the Committee meeting in which this Article was discussed even prominent MDP MPs like Afeef had clearly insisted that the draft reflect the American method. And we all know what the Americans do re approval of Ministers!
I am really dumb founded, a well educated person like Sawad lying abt something very clearly explained in our constitution. i am sorry to say Sawad is wrong if i were him i will be staying at home by now.