DQP accuses government of threatening its MPs

The opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) alleged yesterday the ruling party threatened two of their MPs to ensure they voted against the no-confidence motion against Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed yesterday.

The DQP said it regretted the decision made by Riyaz Rasheed and Hassan Adhil to vote against the party line.

“They told the party leaders that senior MDP leaders from the president himself threatened them with unimaginable restrictions on their businesses if they participated in the vote and told them they would get benefits for their businesses if they did not participate in the vote of no-confidence against Dr Ahmed Shaheed,” said a statement from the party.

The statement said the party regretted such “wicked and dictatorial” behaviour from a government that came to power promising democratic, good governance.

“The party believes that if today’s vote of no-confidence against Dr Ahmed Shaheed was successful there is no doubt that the ‘brutal rule’ of President Nasheed that is unprincipled and outside of legal bounds could have been brought within the bounds and the path would have been paved to hold the government accountable,” it concludes.

Last month, the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party-People’s Alliance (DRP-PA) coalition submitted a motion of no-confidence against Shaheed for allegedly misleading the public over the government’s decision to renew diplomatic ties with Israel.

Shaheed narrowly survived yesterday’s vote; out of 73 MPs in attendance, 37 MPs voted in favour of the motion. 39 votes were needed for the motion to pass.
In a text message to Minivan News today, MDP MP Eva Abdullah said the DQP needed to do some “soul-searching” if their own MPs had decided to vote against them.

“Also Adhil and Riyaz were clearly not going to be manipulated into entertaining an obviously flawed judgement in tabling this motion in the first place and this is precisely what Riyaz expressed yesterday on the floor,” said Eva.

During yesterday’s sitting, Riyaz said he suggested parliament looked into the details of diplomatic relations with Israel when a motion without notice on the issue was debated last month.

“I said then that as the People’s Majlis we have the power and authority to find out to what extent these ties had been established,” he said.

He called on the government to issue a statement to clear the issue up as it was a serious concern and he did not want to waste parliament’s time.

Riyaz said it was questionable whether the vote of no-confidence against Shaheed was justified, adding there were other cabinet ministers who were more deserving of removal from office.

He added he was among the MPs that campaigned to hold the government accountable and in this case parliament should have studied the matter before the vote.

“I know Dr Shaheed very well. I can’t believe that he would do something that would lead to Islam being wiped out from among us,” he said.

Addressing members at the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Nasheed said the Maldives would make use of diplomatic ties to assert its support for an “independent and sovereign” Palestinian homeland.

“We believe dialogue and constructive engagement serve the cause of peace better than ostracism and isolation,” he said.

At the sidelines of the Assembly, the Maldives signed three Memorandums of Understanding with Israel to collaborate in health, education and tourism.

The announcement sparked outrage among opposition and religious groups. Speaking to MPs yesterday, Shaheed denied full diplomatic ties had been established with Israel.

He further offered copies of agreements for diplomatic ties and other documents proving the former government decided to normalise relations with Israel in June 1994 under three phases.

Shaheed argued the no-confidence motion could only be justified in cases where a minister had committed a serious crime or grossly neglected his duties and the opposition’s motion did not cite specific examples to back up their claims.

Shaheed said MPs could have either questioned him at parliament, summoned him to committee or sent him a letter to clear up their questions on the issue before resorting to a vote of no-confidence.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)