Tag: cabinet

DRP statement condemns opposition conduct on cabinet vote

A press statement reportedly sent from from the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) has criticised fellow opposition politicians for voting in favour of the government at the Majlis yesterday over cabinet appointees.

Miadhu reported that the party, currently gripped by internal struggles between supporters of current leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and his predecessor and former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, released a statement saying it was unhappy that four ministerial nominees were endorsed by the Majlis yesterday.

According to the statement, the endorsements came despite Thasmeen having decided to reject three of the ministerial appointments.

“We are disheartened that some of those who voted in favour of the government were those individuals who spoke from the first rows of the different podiums, different TV Channels, taking the government to account,” the DRP were reported as saying.

The statement also raised concerns that DRP politicians Ilham Ahmed and Ali Mohamed did not participate in the votes that, in certain cases, narrowly approved the new cabinet ministers.

Home Minister Hassan Afeef and Transport Minister Adhil Saleem were narrowly approved in spite of the DRP declaring that it would impose a three-line whip to reject the two nominees.

Afeef and Saleem were approved after a few independent MPs along with Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed and Republican Party MP Gasim Ibrahim sided with the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – Saleem was approved with 39 votes in favour while Afeef received 37 votes from the 73 MPs present and voting.

However, MPs rejected the reappointment of Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad for a second time. Dr Sawad received 36 votes in favour and 37 against from the 73 MPs in attendance.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

National office formation not a response to council disputes, government claims

The formation of seven national offices to oversee government projects at regional and local level is not a response to ongoing disputes with some councils following decentralisation, the President’s Office has today said.

The administrative structures of the seven national offices were formed by members of the cabinet yesterday to oversee developments within seven regions across the country to try and coordinate national developments within newly decentralised councils. The councils were themselves established after last month’s local elections.

Administering these local councils has already led to problems in some areas, with police being called in to try and work through disputes concerning the government and newly elected local councils over whether they have the right to relocate their offices.

Some opposition parliamentarians today moved to criticise the formation of the administrative offices as a contradiction to the purpose of decentralizing power to allow councils to meet specific needs of their constituents.

However, the President’s Office has said that the formation of these administrative centres were constitutionally required and not a response to developments this week that saw confrontations with police at the islands of Thulusdhoo and Funadhoo.

Press Secretary for the President Mohamed Zuhair said that the seven offices were established as stipulated under Article 71 of the Decentralisation Act as a means to oversee government development programmes and ensure budgets were being met by councils.

As a result of the formation of these offices, the President’s Office said that the cabinet had decided that all activities of the city, island and atoll councils formed during last month’s local elections were conducted through the offices.

While all these councils at “ground level” were able to meet and deliberate on local matters that affected their constituents, Zuhair said that they “technically remained” part of the national executive when it came to overseeing national developments set out by the government.

“There are budgeted programmes for each island that the government has decided to extend nationally,” he said.

Zuhair added that these seven regional offices would therefore work to oversee the administrative functions of decentralized government and any national developments undertake locally.

According to the President’s Office, the session saw the cabinet appoint individual personnel to oversee each regional office. These positions included:

• Mohamed Hunaif as Minister of State for the Upper North Province and head of the National Office for the Upper North Region

• Ali Niyaz as Deputy Minister of State for the North Province and head of the National Office for the North Region

• Hussain Irfan Zaki as Minister of State for the North Central Province and head of the National Office for the North Central Province

• Ibrahim Mohamed as Deputy Minister of State for Central Province and head of the National Office for the Central Region

• Ahmed Mujuthaba as Minister of State for the South Central Province and head of the National Office for the South Central Region

• Mohamed Shareef as Deputy Minister of State for the Upper South Province and head of the National Office for the Upper South Region

• Ahmed Adhham as Deputy Minister of State for the South Province and head of the National Office for the South Region

Although not directly related to disputes this week between the government and local councils, the president’s press secretary claimed that the offices were a means of overseeing councils were accountable nationally.

According to Zuhair, decentralisation resulting from local elections held on 5 February did not equate to granting individual councils the power to act as independent federal states.

“What we are saying is, that it is for the president to decide which state owned buildings shall be used for council offices as stipulated under the constitution,” he added.

However, the formation of the national offices was met with criticism by Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ahmed Mahlouf who said that opposition parliamentarians would oppose the cabinet on the issue through the courts if necessary.

“It can’t be done,” Mahlouf said in regards to the formation of the seven offices. “We went through the [local council] elections to give power to the people. No government authority can stop or control work [of the councils].”

With the majority of councils under control of the DRP and other opposition parties outside of the major residential municipal regions of Male’ and Addu Atoll, Mahlouf claimed that he believed opposition parties would oppose the national offices.

“[The decision] may go to the courts. It is something we would support. There is no need to send the police,” he said, pointing to this week’s disputes over council offices.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President and MDP condemns attack on Velizenee

President Mohamed Nasheed, his cabinet and the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) have strongly condemned today’s attack on Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Presidential Member Aishath Velizenee.

Velezinee was taken to Male’s Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMM) this morning after being attacked in the streets.

Nasheed later visited Velezinee at the hospital while she was being treated for her injuries, according to the president’s office website.   The president later condemned the attack during a meeting of the cabinet and said that the government would take necessary measures to ensure such incidents did not occur in the future.

The Ruling MDP has also issued a statement today following the attack calling on political parties to resolve their disputes peacefully.

”Valizenee is a person that advocates freedom of speech, of gathering and the promotion of human rights,” said the MDP’s statement.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Silver linings” says President, as Supreme Court ruling prompts Cabinet reshuffle

The departure of seven members of the Maldivian cabinet following Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling that ministers cannot retain their posts without endorsement by the opposition-majority parliament has prompted President Mohamed Nasheed to reshuffle the cabinet.

The Supreme Court ruling came after opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader took the government to court on the matter after using its majority to disapprove the reappointments of seven cabinet ministers. MPs of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) boycotted the vote in protest.

President Nasheed appointed Political Advisor Hassan Afeef as Home Minister, replacing Mohamed Shihab, who has been appointed Advisor on Political Affairs.

Shifa Mohamed has been promoted from Deputy Minister of Education to Minister in place of Dr Musthafa Luthfy. Both Afeef and Shifa received letters of appointment last night.

Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed has meanwhile resigned and been replaced by Minister of Housing and Environment Mohamed Aslam, in the post of acting minister.

Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad, formerly the Tourism Minister, has also resigned and been replaced by Minister of Human Resources, Youth and Sports Hassan Latheef, as acting Attorney General.

Minister of Health and Family Dr Aminath Jameel has been appointed acting Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture in place of Dr Ibrahim Didi.

Minvan News understands that no acting minister has currently been appointed to the Defence portfolio, which will instead be directed by the President with the assistance of security advisors.

It’s not cricket

During a press conference held on Saturday evening at the President’s residence ‘Muleaage’, Nasheed briefly discussed the Maldives’ cricketing triumph over Saudi Arabia in the Asian Cricket Council’s (ACC) 2010 Trophy Challenge, before opening the floor to questions.

Nasheed denied that the parliament had impacted the functioning of government or that the Supreme Court’s ruling had crippled the executive’s ability to appoint cabinet in a highly partisan political landscape.

Instead, he stated, the ruling “makes interpretation of the Constitution much more clear, and should therefore assist governance. Other than giving us clarity, I don’t really see as an obstruction to governance. I see it as giving more clarity as to how go about it.”

The President said he did not regret the decision in June for cabinet to temporarily resign en masse in protest against obstruction by parliament, which opened the executive to a Majlis counter-attack by its refusal to approve ministerial reappointments.

There was, he said, “a bigger picture.”

“I do not regret what happened in June. Try to understand the political landscape and what was happening at that time – which became quite clear through the [leaked] telephone conversations.

“Elements in the opposition were bent on disrupting the government. In very many words we heard that they wanted to topple the government, and remove many cabinet ministers. Cabinet at that time felt it had enough justification to say it was very difficult to govern because of parliamentary obstruction.”

The political instability and “looming uncertainties” created in the resultant vacuum “created an environment where a Supreme Court could be established.”

“For us to be able to come up with a Supreme Court was a fair achievement,” Nasheed said, “and we were able to get that primarily because of a number of political uncertainties that were looming at that time.”

“Now that we have a Supreme Court, it is clear on how we have to proceed with affairs and implement the Consitiution. I think it is a fine experience and I really think that once we step back and have a look what has actually happened, we will be able to understand that there are many many silver linings.”

As for the resigned ministers, “they are very capable people and we will be using their services – if they are willing. I have already had conversatinos with them. I believe they are willing to serve the country and the people, and will continue to serving in the government. But they won’t be serving in cabinet.”

Reaction

While the president was looking for “silver linings” in the dismissal of more than half his cabinet, Press Secretary for the President Mohamed Zuhair indicated that the rest of the executive was not quite as sanguine.

“The Supreme Court has returned the verdict that the opposition can use its ‘brute majority’, without citing any reasons for the disapprovals,” he said. “But it’s not the Supreme Court that refused consent, it was parliament, and people who were involved in the former dicatorship.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling, he said, had set a “disturbing precedent” for a any particularly vindictive majority opposition to perpetually refuse the appointment of ministers not of its choosing.

“Of all the ministers, [those disapproved] were the ones who had worked very hard to establish the Supreme Court and separation of powers, and do away with authorative power. And now it seems like the very same former establishment is punishing those forces,” Zuhair said.

He suggested that the opposition’s stubborness on the matter of endorsement by parliament, and lack of reasons giving for the dismissal of each minister, signalled a political grudge match “after they lost four key appointments when the cabinet resigned: the Chief Justice of the [interim] Supreme Court, who was known to be endorsed by them, the chief of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), who was also endorsed by them, chief of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) who was also endorsed by a DRP majority house, and the JSC Chief Mujthaz Fahmy, who appeared to be supportive of them. That may have rankled.”

“And there are other reasons – for instance, they have accused [Defence Minister] Ameen Faisal of involvement in the coup attempt of 1988, which he denies. [Former President] Gayoom’s judiciary at the time saw rebellion as a high crime, whereas in today’s multi-party democracy, someone going against the government is not a rebel.”

Deputy Leader and spokesperson for the DRP, Ibrahim Shareef, said the opposition was willing to give the President “the benefit of the doubt” and endorse any minister nominated, “as long as they can do the job.”

Shareef said it was too early to comment on whether the party would be endorsing the ministers currently pending parliamentary approval, including last night’s appointments to the Education and Home Affairs portfolios, Shifa Mohamed and Hassan Afeef.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court rules rejected ministers cannot remain in their positions

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday night that the seven cabinet ministers not endorsed by the opposition-majority parliament cannot remain in their posts.

Delivering the verdict, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussein noted that the Constitution did not state what should happen to rejected ministers, requiring the Supreme Court to make an interpretation.

All Supreme Court judges – with the exception of Judge Muthasim Adnan – ruled that ministers required the endorsement of parliament as stated in the Constitution.

However, the ministers would not be immediately dismissed, and would remain “employees” of the President until new nominees were put forward to parliament by the President.

President Mohamed Nasheed said during this week’s radio address that he would respect the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“When the Supreme Court rules that cabinet ministers cannot remain in office without the approval [of the People’s Majlis], it is compulsory for the President to follow that ruling”, President Nasheed said, emphasising that this evidence of an judiciary independent from the government was “a great achievement for the democratic process of the country.”

Health Minister Dr Aiminath Jameel, Youth Minister Hassan Latheef, Economic Minister Mahmood Razi, Housing Minister Mohamed Aslam and Islamic Minister Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari were approved by parliament on November 22, during a vote that was boycotted by MPs from the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Seven ministers – Finance Minister Ali Hashim, Education Minister Dr Musthafa Luthfy, Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed, Fisheries Minister Dr Ibrahim Didi, Home Minister Mohamed Shihab, Defence Minister Ameen Faisal and Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad – did not receive a majority of votes from the 42 MPs in attendance.

Following the vote, Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, head of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), took the case to Supreme Court arguing that Ministers rejected by parliament should be dismissed from office.

Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad was not responding to calls at time of press, but has previously said that “any interpretation [of the Constitution] whereby an appointed minister can be removed from his position by a simple majority, 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.”

“Any interpretation that facilitates such instability in the political system is a very serious threat to our nation,” he stated.

The process of appointing cabinet members was criticised as ‘defective’ by Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, who claimed that the appointment process remained “beyond resolution” in such a highly partisan political environment.

“The [current] political environment is not conducive for a resolution within parliament,” he explained.

The cabinet resigned en masse in June protesting the “scorched-earth policies” of parliament, accusing the opposition majority of corrupt practices, deliberate obstruction and attempts to wrest executive control from the government.

Ministers were reappointed nine days later, making the cabinet vulnerable to the present ‘dismissal by procedure’.

The Supreme Court verdict is a firm rebuke to the government’s argument that approval of ministers by parliament is a “ceremonial” process and not tantamount to dismissal, and could be considered a victory for the opposition in retaliation for June’s publicity stunt.

However, the allowance for an unspecified interim period gives the government room to manoeuvre, and should Ministers remain in their posts as “employees”, is likely to spark fresh political turmoil over whether the government is adhering to the spirit of the ruling.

The ruling also increases pressure on the government to get the 2011 State Budget through parliament in the few remaining days of session before the end of the year.

The opposition has said it will not allow Finance Minister Ali Hashim to present the budget, however the government has argued that the budget was sent to parliament on December 1 and – against tradition – does not have to be presented in person.

Parliament’s regulations state that debate on the budget must commence within seven days of receiving the document and be decided upon seven days before the end of the year.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Clearly rejected

Among the wheeling and dealings we’ve seen in the Majlis, the issue of Cabinet Ministers has been one of the most convoluted and silly arguments we’ve seen.

Can the Cabinet Ministers be questioned? Can’t they be accepted or rejected together? Are they just nominated or actually appointed? And therefore once chosen by the President, are they Ministers or Ministers-in-waiting? And in what capacity are they beholden to the Majlis?

Within two days the Supreme Court will decide on these questions. In two days, hopefully the drama will end, rather than begin anew.

Why are they going to court?

The Majlis has rejected seven Cabinet Ministers. MDP does not like this and would like all of their Ministers to keep their portfolios. Was approval necessary? Yes. Can the Majlis reject a Cabinet member without a vote of no confidence? Yes, but only when the President asks for their approval and acceptance of that appointment.

Nowhere is it written in the constitution that there is only one way to remove a Cabinet Minister, as Reeko Moosa suggests.

Article 101 of the Constitution states that a vote of no confidence is possible, but it does not say that a vote of no confidence is the only way to remove a Minister. There are in fact two ways: 1) A vote of no confidence; or 2) A rejection when appointed.

Once appointed, s/he is a Minister

The opposition claims that individuals were nominated rather than appointed. They claim that the President can choose people, and that those people would only become Ministers once they have approval. This is false.

The President does not nominate, he appoints. The moment those individuals take their oath by either the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or his representative, those individuals become Ministers of the Cabinet of the Republic of the Maldives as per Article 131 of the Constitution.

Article 131 states: ‘A member of the cabinet shall assume office upon taking and subscribing, before the Chief Justice or his Designate, the oath of office.’

The only thing that might be left up to debate is whether the Chief Justice could choose to simply not provide himself or his representative to swear the appointees in, and refuse to do so until each individual had parliamentary approval.

But in this case, Abdullah Saeed (Chief Justice at the time) did not do so. If you think back, though, you will remember that the cabinet was re-sworn at the same time that the MNDF had locked up the Supreme/High Courts and taken away the key. Not surprisingly, after Abdullah Saeed had sent his representative to swear in the cabinet he was given back the key to his office.

Nonetheless, once these individuals were sworn in, they were fully fledged Ministers, with every power, right, authority, and responsibility afforded them. All talk claiming they were just acting as ministers is just silliness. But if these people are already Ministers, do they still need approval? Isn’t it just a formality?

Approval or rejection necessary

Article 129C and D of the Constitution state:

C. Except for the Vice President, the President must receive the approval of the People’s Majlis for all appointments to the cabinet.

D. The President shall submit to the People’s Majlis, within seven days of making appointments to the Cabinet, the names of the appointees to the Cabinet for approval to the People’s Majlis.

Article 129C clearly states that the President “must receive approval” of the Majlis. Therefore, if any Cabinet Minister is rejected, then they are no longer Ministers of the cabinet. The only way they can continue is if the President swears them in again, where they will then have seven days before the President is required to send their names to the Majlis for a second time.

I do not believe there is any impediment to repeating this as many times as the President wants. Though I’m sure rejection after rejection by the Majlis would appear a complete farce in the eyes of the public.

Together or one by one

As to the issue of whether the cabinet should be approved together or individually, that is completely up to the preference of the Majlis Members. It is a tiny insignificant point that the constitution makes no reference to.

MDP thought there would be a bigger chance to get everyone approved if they are lumped together, because then DRP could be made to look stubborn and completely against all betterment of the nation if all of the cabinet members were wholly rejected.

One usually expects the entire cabinet to come to approval only once in a presidential term. It was assumed that after the approval of the entire cabinet, if a minister was dismissed, it would be done on a case by case basis.

But alas, that was not how things went down in this scenario. In this case, there is another instance which was particularly odd as well in the issue around whether Minister’s couldn’t be questioned.

Questioning Ministers

So, can a Minister be questioned? Of course, but only about the job at hand.

The opposition wanted to evaluate and judge each Minister before giving their approval. They claimed that a summons for this purpose required Ministers to come.

This is false. Ministers are only required to attend the Majlis for questions regarding their duties and responsibilities – not their qualification. In fact, under Article 98 of the Constitution, they can question any head of any government office if they so chose to. To answer falsely, or withhold information would directly violate the constitution.

The Supreme Court agreed with this evaluation in stating at the article in the Majlis rules of procedure that required their presence to judge their qualifications was outside of the constitution.

The bottom line and 2011 budget

The seven Ministers who were rejected by parliament remain rejected. However, until that rejection was decided by a vote of parliament, they were proper Ministers.

They were therefore required to answer summons that related to their job, but not to summons to simply scrutinize them on their qualifications.

The only way for the President to have Ali Hashim, former Finance Minister, present the budget is to reappoint him and swear him in. I believe Ali Hashim is one of our most capable Ministers, and if not for being caught in the crosshairs of political maneuvering, his position would not be in question.

It is a shame and a travesty that this issue is dominating so much of the public’s time and that these Ministers are losing their livelihoods over it. It is a shame that so many other bills that need passing, like those on drugs, evidence, and the penal code are left on the sidelines while we quibble about Ministerial portfolios.

While I have my own claim and object to GIP (Gaumee Itthihaad Party) not receiving its three cabinet portfolios in Economic Development, Education, and Fisheries as was understood in the MDP Itthihaad Coalition agreement, I still do not condone spending time on this issue when so many more desperate issues are waiting to be addressed.

There are procedures for cabinet appointments that should have been followed. There once was a clear understanding of how to go about all of this. But instead of it being a simple and day long matter, it has led our nation to constitutional crisis. Instead of following procedure we all now look at the constitution from a thousand different angles and wrest every type of meaning we can from every line before proceeding in the way most beneficial to us.

I am not a government apologist trying to hide constitutional violations, nor an opposition sympathizer trying to topple the government. I’m just trying to make sense of a now convoluted issue.

I pray that the Supreme Court protects the constitution and laws it was created to uphold and that their life time tenures ensures justice free of political sway and maneuvering.

I pray that we can move forward from this upcoming Supreme Court decision and find a way to create a whole government dedicated to the MDP Itthihaad manifesto confirmed two years ago.

I pray our conscience prevails and sanity finally reigns.

Note: Article 87 states:

A. Unless otherwise provided in this Constitution; all decisions made by the People’s Majlis shall be decided by a majority of the votes of members present and voting (Approval or rejection of Cabinet Ministers is done this way as it is not mentioned anywhere else.

http://jswaheed.com

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Opposition parties seek Supreme Court order to remove ministers

Opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party-People’s Alliance (DRP-PA) coalition has filed a case in the Supreme Court seeking a court order to declare that ministers who did not receive parliamentary consent should be removed their posts.

The case was filed at the Supreme Court by DRP Deputy Leader MP Ali Waheed and PA Deputy Leader Moosa Zameer.

Former Attorney General and DRP Council Member Azima Shukoor will argue the opposition’s case in court.

PA Secretary General Ahmed Shareef told Minivan News today that the constitution was very clear on the matter: ”Parliament’s consent is required for cabinet ministers to remain in their position. It is the spirit of the constitution.”

He added that the minutes of the Special Majlis debates on the issue adds weight to the opposition’s position.

”It is unlawful for those in the cabinet who did not get consent of parliament to remain in their positions,” he added.

Following weeks of political stalemate, parliament voted this week voted to approve five out of 12 cabinet ministers reappointed by President Mohamed Nasheed in July.

After MPs of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) boycotted the sitting before voting began, the remaining MPs voted against the nominees Finance Minister Ali Hashim, Education Minister Dr Musthafa Luthfy, Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed, Fisheries Minister Dr Ibrahim Didi, Home Minister Mohamed Shihab, Defence Minister Ameen Faisal and Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad.

The government however insists that as none of the ministerial appointees received 39 votes against – the majority required to pass a no-confidence motion – all cabinet members shall remain in their posts.

Meanwhile, Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed, Legal Reform Minister under the former government, told Minivan News yesterday that the dispute over cabinet endorsement highlighted “defects” in the process.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ministerial appointment system “defective”, says MP Nasheed

The process of appointing cabinet members has been criticised as ‘defective’ by an Kuludufushi-South MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, who has claimed that constitutional changes within the Supreme Court will be required to address the nation’s ongoing political deadlock.

The independent MP today told Minivan News that yesterday’s votes on ministerial appointments, which saw a boycott of the sitting by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs before the approval of just five of 12 cabinet posts by the opposition majority parliament, may require court intervention before being settled.

The claims comes as Miadhu today reported that Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, head of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), threatened to turn to the Supreme Court if the seven ministers rejected in yesterday’s vote remained in office.

Despite the stalemate over the cabinet appointment issue, MP Nasheed said parliament today functioned “normally” with a number of bills under discussion, such as the proposed strike legislation.

However, the independent MP claimed that differences of opinion, particularly between the MDP and the DRP, highlighted to all sides that there were “defects” within the constitution concerning ministerial appointments.

The appointment process remained “beyond resolution” in a highly partisan political environment.

“The [current] political environment is not conducive for a resolution within parliament,” he explained.

According to Nasheed, this difference of opinion stems from two very different processes of thought currently within parliament.

MDP rationale, Nasheed said, was that cabinet ministers could only be rejected under a motion of no-confidence that required 39 parliamentary votes to pass. However, he added, opposition groups remained unable to table possible no-confidence motions for cabinet members that had not been appointed by the Majlis.

These differences, he suggested, revealed a major defect in the appointment process.

“Only when all these processes are agreed can there be a cabinet,” he added. “I think the matter will need to be resolved through the Supreme Court.”

The President’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair told Minivan News today that parliamentary rules required 39 votes to pass a no confidence motion concerning an individual cabinet minister.

With individual voting for every appointee during yesterday’s sitting falling short of the number of votes required for a no-confidence motion, Zuhair said the President “is happy the ministers are rightfully in place.”

He claimed that ministerial appointments were “not a case of popularity, but confidence”.

All 12 cabinet ministers were reinstated to their positions in July following a protest resignation about what they claimed were the “scorched earth” politics of the opposition-majority parliament.

Despite talks of legal action from the opposition, Parliamentery Speaker Abdulla Shahid – himself a DRP MP – said he was optimistic that the rival parties could reach an “amicable solution” within the current political framework.

“I am urging parties to engage in dialogue,” said Shahid, who claimed the ministerial statemate created by yesterday’s decision would not adversely affect important upcoming legislation such passing the 2011 budget.

Shahid told Minivan News that despite its fledgling status, Maldivian democracy “had a history of engaging in dialogue to overcome political deadlocks. We will find an amicable solution.”

Despite ongoing uncertainty resulting from issues such as the cabinet appointments, Shahid added that it was vital to establish ‘customs and norms’ within the Maldives’ parliamentary proceedings.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Speaker and Deputy Speaker will be unable to enter parliament if Hashim cannot, claims Reeko

Parliamentary Leader of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, has threatened to bar the speaker of the Majlis and his deputy from entering parliament if Finance Minister Ali Hashim is prevented from performing his duties.

Manik has warned that if Finance Minister Ali Hashim is disallowed to enter the parliament chamber to present the annual budget for next year, Speaker Abdulla Shahid and Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim would be prevented entry by the MDP.

Ali Hashim was one of the five ministers parliament yesterday voted to dismiss from the cabinet.

After three weeks of stalemate, parliament voted to approve five out of a dozen cabinet ministers reappointed by President Mohamed Nasheed in July, while MPs of the ruling MDP boycotted the sitting before voting began.

Seven ministers – Finance Minister Ali Hashim, Education Minister Dr Musthafa Luthfy, Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed, Fisheries Minister Dr Ibrahim Didi and Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad – did not receive a majority of votes from the 42 MPs in attendance.

Moosa said that it was not for the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party [DRP] to decide whether Hashim can or cannot enter the parliament in cases related to finance ministry.

”There is not even a slight difficulty for Hashim to enter the parliament as long as he remains as an appointed minister by the executive power,” said Moosa. ”The vote parliament took yesterday was also illegitimate.”

Moosa said yesterday that MDP MPs left the parliament chamber to loosen the deadlock in parliament over cabinet endorsement, so that the parliament could proceed with other necessary works such as a Witnesses Bill and approving next year’s budget.

Moosa’s remarks suggested it was a response to what DRP leader and MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and People’s Alliance party [PA] deputy leader and deputy speaker of the parliament MP Ahmed Nazim said following the parliament’s decision.

Thasmeen told the media that if the dismissed ministers remain in office to proceed with their work, ”it would be a really serious issue and the matter would be taken to the Supreme Court.”

Meanwhile, Nazim have told the media that ”there is no way Hashim could present the budget as he did not get the consent of the parliament to be in the position.”

Nazim also argued that any minister that did not get the consent of the parliament should not remain in the position.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)