Tag: secret ballot

Committee rejects secret voting for parliamentary no confidence motions

Parliament’s General Purpose Committee has rejected procedural amendments to allow secret voting for no confidence motions, such as one presently scheduled against President Dr Mohamed Waheed.

Committee Chair MP Abdulla Abdul Raheem said the decision, which will now be forwarded to the parliament floor for approval, meant that the existing regulations outlining procedures for no confidence votes approved back in March 2010 would remain in place.

The issue had been sent to the committee by Speaker Abdulla Shahid to settle a “way forward” for no confidence motions after the Supreme Court last month struck down amendments allowing secret voting in parliament, Raheem said today.

The General Purpose Committee Committee voted four to three against the amendment proposed by opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Nazim Rashaad to specify instances whereby parliament could use secret voting and hold sittings behind closed doors, Sun Online reported today.

MPs representing several coalition parties in the unity government of President Waheed, which make up the majority of the committee’s members, all voted against the amendments, with the deciding vote cast by Chairperson Raheem.

Raheem told Minivan News that amendments for secret voting had been rejected over concerns that voting behind closed doors was unconstitutional and may lead to further conflict with the Supreme Court.

Secret voting was the subject of one of two Supreme Court rulings this year to be previously criticised by opposition, government-aligned and independent MPs as an unconstitutional “challenge to the separation of powers.”

In its judgement (Dhivehi) on the constitutionality of secret ballots for no-confidence votes, the Supreme Court majority opinion contended that the rule contravened article 85 of the constitution as well as parliamentary principles and norms of free and democratic societies.

Raheem added that in line with this ruling, the committee had instead chosen to retain existing regulations on no confidence motions that had been in use since March 2010. He claimed these measures had been previously approved by bodies like the International-Parliamentary Union (IPU).

Priority issue

Addressing today’s vote, government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Parliamentary Group Leader Abdulla Mausoom claimed that the rejection of the procedural issue of secret voting had not been a major concern for the party.

“We do not see this is a priority issue at the moment. We are brave enough as a party to vote transparently on these matters,” he said.

Meanwhile, MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed that the opposition party would not back away from trying to vote out senior government figures include President Waheed, despite failing to secure a secret ballot.

“[President] Waheed’s no confidence motion still stands, whether the vote is secret or not is irrelevant,” he claimed.

Ghafoor alleged that the party had originally sought to have a no confidence motion behind closed doors over fears MPs would be too scared to vote in the current climate following the controversial transfer of power on February 7, 2012.

The MDP has maintained that the transfer of power that saw former President Nasheed resign from office following a mutiny by sections of the military and police was a “coup d’etat”.

“This is not a normal situation at present, the Supreme Court itself is part of this coup government,” Ghafoor claimed.

He said that while that the MDP had withdrawn no-confidence votes against Home Minister Mohamed Jameel and Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim on April 8 this year due to a lack of confidence in the vote, the party did not rule out rescheduling at a later date.

MDP MPs claimed upon withdrawing the no confidence motions earlier this month that the government-aligned DRP had agreed to vote in favour of the motions before reversing the decision at the eleventh hour.

MPs of the government-aligned Jumhooree Party (JP) and DRP had voted in favour of a secret ballot for no-confidence votes in December 2012.

Ghafoor claimed that with the recent defection of Speaker Shahid to the MDP and ongoing changes to the composition of parliament, the intention remained to try and remove the defence and home minsters as well as President Waheed.

“The [no confidence] strategy is not failed yet. Though the vote is not in our favour at the moment, things are always changing.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court rules secret ballot, dismissal of CSC chair unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that contested decisions by parliament to remove Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair Mohamed Fahmy Hassan and conduct no-confidence votes through secret ballot are unconstitutional.

On December 3, 2012, parliament voted 41-34 to approve amendments to the parliamentary rules of procedure to conduct no-confidence votes to impeach the President and remove cabinet members through secret ballot. The house rules were changed with pending no-confidence motions against President Dr Mohamed Waheed and Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed submitted by the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

In late November, parliament dismissed Fahmy in a 38-32 vote after the Independent Institutions Committee investigated a complaint of sexual harassment by a female employee of the CSC.

Both moves were challenged at the Supreme Court, which issued injunctions or stay orders to parliament to halt both conducting no-confidence votes through secret ballot and appointing a replacement to the CSC, pending rulings on the legality of the decisions.

In its judgment (Dhivehi) on the constitutionality of secret ballots for no-confidence votes, the Supreme Court ruled 6-1 to strike down the amendment to parliament’s standing orders as unconstitutional. The majority opinion contended that the move contravened article 85 of the constitution as well as parliamentary principles and norms of free and democratic societies.

Article 85 stipulates that meetings of the People’s Majlis and its committees must be open to the public.

In the second judgment (Dhivehi) on Thursday night, the Supreme Court noted that Fahmy was alleged to have committed a criminal offence and contended that the Independent Institutions Committee violated due process and principles of criminal justice procedure in dealing with the accused.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that Fahmy would receive two punishments for the same crime if he was convicted at court following his dismissal by parliament (double jeopardy). Following the judgment, Fahmy would be reinstated and compensated for lost wages since December 2012.

Delivering the judgment, Supreme Court Justice Abdulla Saeed reportedly said that a person should be considered innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law and was entitled to protect his reputation and dignity.

Dissenting opinion

Meanwhile, Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan – the only Supreme Court justice with a background in common law – issued dissenting opinions in both cases.

On the constitutionality of the secret ballot, Justice Adnan noted that article 101(f) of the constitution states that “the regulations governing the functioning of the People’s Majlis shall specify the principles and procedures concerning a resolution to remove the President or Vice President from office as provided in this Constitution.”

Unless a clause added to the regulation was explicitly in violation of the constitution, Justice Adnan said that he believed it “could not be challenged in any court in the Maldives.”

He further noted that while article 85 of the constitution requires parliamentary proceedings to be open to the public, 85(b) states that a majority of MPs present and voting could decide to exclude the public or press “if there is a compelling need to do so in the interest of public order or national security.”

Moreover, article 85(c) states, “Article (b) does not prevent the People’s Majlis from specifying additional reasons for excluding the public from all or any part of a committee meeting of the People’s Majlis.”

He added that the secret ballot would be taken at a sitting open to the public.

In the case submitted by Fahmy contesting his dismissal, Justice Adnan’s dissenting opinion noted that article 187(a) of the constitution authorised parliament to remove members of the CSC “on the ground of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence.”

Article 187(b) meanwhile states, “a finding to that effect by a committee of the People’s Majlis pursuant to article (a), and upon the approval of such finding by the People’s Majlis by a majority of those present and voting, calling for the member’s removal from office, such member shall be deemed removed from office.”

Justice Adnan argued that an inquiry by a parliamentary committee into alleged misconduct would not be a criminal investigation. Therefore, he added, the oversight committee would not be required to prove guilt to the extent required at trial before making a decision.

He further noted that parliament’s dismissal under the authority of article 187 and a possible conviction at a late date could not be considered meting out two punishments for the same offence.

Separation of powers

Following the injunctions issued by the Supreme Court in December 2012, MDP MP Eva Abdulla told Minivan News that the supremacy of parliament was at stake in the cases before the apex court.

“By its actions, the Supreme Court is challenging the separation of powers that underpins the constitutional basis of governance,” Eva said.

Meanwhile, Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South, Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, contended in his blog on December 12 that the Supreme Court did not have the legal or constitutional authority to issue the injunctive orders against parliament.

Moreover, the Supreme Court “does not have the power to even accept those cases,” he wrote.

Article 88(b) of the constitution states: “Unless otherwise specified in this constitution, the validity of any proceedings in the People’s Majlis shall not be questioned in any court of law.”

Nasheed argued that decisions made by parliament could not be challenged in court except in instances clearly specified in the constitution, which did not include dismissal of members of independent institutions and amendments to Majlis regulations.

The purpose of article 88 was to prevent parliament’s decisions being challenged or overturned, Nasheed said, as in the absence of such a clause the Supreme Court would become a “People’s Appeal Majlis” with supremacy over the house of elected representatives.

“If every decision of the People’s Majlis is appealed at the Supreme Court in the manner that any judgement by the High Court can be appealed at the Supreme Court, then there is no difference between the People’s Majlis and the High Court,” Nasheed wrote.

This was against the separation of powers envisioned in the constitution, Nasheed said, which vested legislative powers in parliament and clearly specified instances where its decisions could be challenged at court.

Former legal reform minister Nasheed is chair of the Independent Institutions Committee. Asked by the Supreme Court to hand over minutes of the committee inquiry, Nasheed had refused.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament tables no-confidence motion against Defence Minister in defiance of Supreme Court injunction

Parliament announced today that a no-confidence motion filed against Defence Minister Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim has been tabled despite a Supreme Court injunction ordering parliament to halt pending no-confidence votes.

The People’s Majlis secretariat revealed that Defence Minister Nazim has been given the required 14-day notice and his ministry also duly informed by Speaker Abdulla Shahid.

Article 101(a) of the constitution states, “At least fourteen days notice of the debate in the People’s Majlis concerning a motion under article (a) shall be given to the concerned member of the cabinet, and he shall have the right to defend himself in the sittings of the People’s Majlis, both orally and in writing.”

The move comes in apparent defiance of an injunction or stay order issued by the Supreme Court to halt conducting no-confidence votes through secret ballot, pending a ruling by the apex court on the constitutionality of the secret vote.

Speaker Abdulla Shahid and Parliament’s Counsellor General Fathimath Filza were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

The injunction (Dhivehi) was issued in a case filed by Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) council member and lawyer of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Mohamed Waheed Ibrahim ‘Wadde’.

Waheed contended that secret votes were unlawful as article 85 of the constitution states that the People’s Majlis or any of its committees “may decide to exclude the public and the press from all or any part of the proceedings if there is a compelling need to do so in the interests of public order or national security.”

Waheed requested the Supreme Court specify the constitutional measure to determine a two-third majority of parliament – required to impeach the president – and to declare that the Majlis decision to approve a secret ballot was unconstitutional.

On December 3, parliament voted 41-34 to approve amendments to the parliamentary rules of procedure to conduct no-confidence votes to impeach the President and remove cabinet members through secret ballot.

MPs of the government-aligned Jumhooree Party (JP) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) joined the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to vote the amendment through.

The no-confidence motion against Defence Minister Nazim was submitted by the MDP earlier this month on the grounds that he misused his authority as acting Transport Minister by using the military to influence termination of commercial contracts.

The MDP has also submitted a no-confidence motion to impeach President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.

The no-confidence motion against Nazim was filed with the signatures of 17 MPs, according to the Majlis secretariat.

Under article 101(a), “A motion expressing want of confidence in a member of the Cabinet may be moved in the People’s Majlis, under the hand of at least ten members, specifying the reasons.”

“Challenging separation of powers”

In a separate ruling, the Supreme Court also issued an injunction ordering parliament not to appoint a new member to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pending a ruling on the legality of parliament’s dismissal of the CSC’s former chair, Mohamed Fahmy Hassan.

Fahmy had filed a case contesting the legality of his removal from the independent institution on November 20 on the grounds that he had allegedly sexual harassed a female employee.

“What is at stake is the supremacy of the parliament as the representative of the people. By its actions, the Supreme Court is challenging the separation of powers that underpins the constitutional basis of governance,” MDP MP Eva Abdulla told Minivan News yesterday.

In its stay orders, the Supreme Court referred to article 144(b) of the constitution, which states: “When deciding a constitutional matter within its jurisdiction, a court may in connection with a declaration pursuant to the article make any order that is just and equitable, including an […] suspending the declaration of invalidity (of a statute, regulation or action due to inconsistency with the Constitution) for any period and on any conditions, to allow the competent authority to correct the defect.”

Kutti NasheedMeanwhile, Independent MP for Kulhudhufushi South, Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, contended in his blog yesterday (December 12) that the Supreme Court did not have the legal or constitutional authority to issue the injunctive orders against parliament.

Moreover, the Supreme Court “does not have the power to even accept those cases,” he wrote.

Article 88(b) of the constitution states: “Unless otherwise specified in this constitution, the validity of any proceedings in the People’s Majlis shall not be questioned in any court of law.”

Nasheed argued that decisions made by parliament could not be challenged in court except in instances clearly specified in the constitution.

The purpose of article 88 was to prevent parliament’s decisions being challenged or overturned, Nasheed said, as in the absence of such a clause the Supreme Court would become a “People’s Appeal Majlis” with supremacy over the house of elected representatives.

“If every decision of the People’s Majlis is appealed at the Supreme Court in the manner that any judgement by the High Court can be appealed at the Supreme Court, then there is no difference between the People’s Majlis and the High Court,” Nasheed wrote.

This was against the separation of powers envisioned in the constitution, Nasheed said, which vested legislative powers in parliament and clearly specified instances where its decisions could be challenged at court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP plays down warnings of political violence, but concerned over parliamentary “climate of fear”

The government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) has claimed that “bullying” by front-line activists of its coalition partners has created a “climate of fear” not conducive to holding “free and fair” votes in the People’s Majlis on key upcoming matters.

Speaking to Minvain News, DRP Deputy Leader Ibrahim Shareef stopped short of backing claims by the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) concerning “threats of political violence against their lives and property by rivals”, believing the government was not directly involved in such acts.

However, Shareef claimed that rhetoric by front-line supporters of fellow government-aligned supporters like the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) had affected its decision yesterday to support a secret vote for a no confidence motion against President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

Other senior government figures are also set to face no-confidence motions in the next few weeks, including present Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, who today dismissed the MDP’s allegations as a politically motivated attempt to try and “paralyse” the running of the government.

“Such allegations are purely politically motivated and [serve] to cover up [the MDP’s] efforts to bring government to a halt. I do not believe that [the MP’s] allegation have anything to do with a threat of violence, rather, some members assert it as a cover up to hide their attempt to paralyse government,” he told Minivan News by SMS. “The state has already offered security to all members of the parliament.”

The MDP’s parliamentary group visited the Indian High Commission in Male’ yesterday to register concerns over alleged political violence facing MPs. The visit was made of ahead of its attempts to pursue no confidence motions against President Waheed and his deputy, Mohamed Waheed Deen.

Parliament voted yesterday 41-34 to approve amendments to the parliamentary rules of procedure to conduct no-confidence votes to impeach the President and remove cabinet members through secret ballot.  The vote passed after a similar proposition was narrowly defeated 39-34  last month.

Meeting with Indian high Commissioner D M Mulay yesterday, the MDP said it had been given assurances that its concerns of MPs facing violence towards themselves and their property had been forwarded to the Indian government.

India is itself presently involved in a diplomatic dispute with the Maldives over the government’s decision to terminate an US$511m contract signed with India-based Infrastructure group and reclaim the site despite an injunction from the High Court of Singapore.

“Prior to the motion to make the ballot for confidence motions secret, leaders of alleged usurper President Waheed’s political supporters, including fundamentalist Islamists with extremist intentions, had made a number of threats against MPs who would dare vote against the alleged usurper government,” the MDP claimed in a statement.

“In this regard, Adhaalath Party President Sheikh Imran Abdulla threatened physical force against MPs publicly saying that they would ‘chase and pursue MPs on the roads’.“

Registering its concerns with the Indian High Commission, the party alleged that MPs had also been targeted with violent acts including “baton beatings” and “surprise raids of their privacy”.

The MDP also raised the issue of the murder of PPM MP Dr Afraasheem Ali, who it claimed had allegedly been murdered for his “moderate religious views” and been previously threatened the government-aligned Adhalaath Party.

However, investigations are continuing into Dr Afrasheems death, with police having not yet officially confirmed any motive behind the murder.

The Maldives Police Service today refused to comment on media reports concerning the arrest of Abdulla Jaavid, son in law of MDP Chairperson Reeko Moosa Manik, in connection with the investigations into Dr Afrasheem’s murder.

Police Spokesperson Sub Inspector Hassan Haneef said he had no comment on the matter, adding that police were holding a press conference this afternoon.

Responding to the MDP’s allegations about increased political violence against MPs, DRP Deputy Ibrahim Shareef said that there was a large amount of “confusion” within the political arena at the moment. However, Shareef said he did not believe the government of President Waheed was directly attempting to “bully” MPs over how they chose to vote on key issues.

“I do not believe President Waheed or his government has such a plan,” he claimed. “There are of course threats of violence taking place on the streets right now.”

Shareef criticised both the MDP and PPM – the majority and minority representatives in parliament – for what he alleged were their use of tactics such as “activist” methods and violence to try and influence MP voting.

“We are a new democracy and people seem to believe that violence is part of the democratic way, they simply don’t believe they are acting in an unusual way,” he claimed.

Shareef maintained that recent rhetoric from some government-aligned parties towards parliament was tantamount to bullying, which he said had been the reason behind the party’s decision to encourage its MP to back a secret ballot against removing the president from office.

“Right now, we are under tremendous pressure and have sacrificed a lot. Under this bullying, parliament cannot conduct a free and fair vote, “ he claimed, pointing to rhetoric from some members of the PPM and other parties regarding parliament’s conduct and voting.

“Distrust”

Shareef also slammed the partisan nature of media in the Maldives for furthering to create distrust among the public over the work of MPs and “poisoning” the atmosphere in parliament.

Despite supporting the push for secret voting, Shareef said he hoped such votes would not become the normal course of procedure for parliament.

“[Secret ballots] should not be the norm, but in the current climate of fear we are seeing, this is an emergency situation,” he said. “We would of course prefer open votes, and I hope that [secret ballots] are only a temporary measure.”

Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid, PA MP Ahmed Nazim, and PPM MP and Spokesperson Ahmed Mahlouf were not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament approves amendment to conduct no-confidence votes through secret ballot

Parliament voted today 41-34 to approve amendments to the parliamentary rules of procedure to conduct no-confidence votes to impeach the President and remove cabinet members through secret ballot.

Today’s vote passed after a similar proposition was narrowly defeated 39-34 in November.

In October, the ousted Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) submitted a no-confidence motion to impeach President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.

The no-confidence motion has however yet to be tabled in the Majlis agenda. Under the rules or standing orders, the President must be given a 14-day notice ahead of the vote.

Today’s vote was won after MPs of the government-aligned Jumhooree Party (JP) and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) – including respective leaders MPs Gasim Ibrahim and Ahmed Thasmeen Ali – joined MDP MPs to vote in favour of the amendments.

The amendment to the house rules was meanwhile approved after MPs voted in favour of a report (Dhivehi) by the MDP-majority General Affairs Committee, which voted last month in favour of the amendments proposed by MDP MP Ibrahim Rasheed for secret voting.

During today’s debate on the report, MPs of the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) contended that the report was tabled in the agenda in violation of Majlis rules and criticised having to vote on the same issue for a second time.

PPM MPs along with some DRP MPs and several Independent MPs argued against secret ballots in parliament and insisted that constituents deserved to know how their MPs vote.

MPs further contended that conducting no-confidence votes through secret ballot would give weight to widespread allegations of corruption levelled against parliament.

Meanwhile, speaking at rally on Thursday night, Adhaalath Party President Sheikh Imran Abdulla called MPs who voted in favour of secret ballot “traitors.”

Imran warned that he would “chase after” MPs and the Speaker if the amendments were approved and threatened “direct action”.

“The day that [Speaker Abdulla] Shahid takes a vote to destroy the country is the day that we run after him,” Imran had said.

In an apparent response, Speaker Shahid said in a statement this week that intimidation and threats of force against MPs violated “the spirit of the constitution and democratic principles.”

Article 90(a) of the constitution states, “No member or other person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court, and no person shall be subject to any inquiry, arrest, detention or prosecution, with respect to anything said in, produced before, or submitted to the People’s Majlis or any of its committees, or with respect to any vote given if the same is not contrary to any tenet of Islam.”

While informing MPs of the wishes of the public was part of democratic norms, Speaker Shahid said in his statement that it did not include threats, intimidation and “inflicting psychological or physical harm on MPs.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament votes against keeping impeachment votes a secret vote

Members of parliament have vote against the proposed amendment to parliamentary regulation that would have otherwise made impeachment votes secret.

The opposition-initiated proposition was defeated in Monday’s parliamentary vote with a narrow margin of 34 to 39 votes.

Members of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) who earlier issued a three-line-whip, all voted in favour of the proposed amendment, while government aligned Jumhoree Party (JP) MPs also voted in favour of the proposition.

The government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ali Azim, whom the Civil Court had initially ordered police to produce in court, also voted with the opposition.

The amendment was proposed to the parliament by MDP MP Mohamed Shifaz and was approved by the parliament’s general affairs committee for the second time, after a previous decision by the committee was declared void by the Counsellor General Fathmath Filza on the grounds that the committee meeting on October 23 where it was voted through took place in violation of the rules.

The amendment was earlier proposed by Independent MP for Dhaalu Atoll Kudahuvadhoo, Ahmed Amir, who later withdrew the amendment claiming that his constituents did not “approve” of his decision.

During the parliamentary debate held prior to the vote, several MPs highlighted that it was important for such critical votes to be made a secret ballot since it directly related to the safety of the MPs themselves. Other MPs claimed that making such votes a secret ballot was “undemocratic” and conflicted with the constitution and its spirit.

Speaking in the debate, government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Shifaq Mufeed stated that there were “devious plans” behind making impeachment votes a secret and claimed that it was against the law.

“To establish a procedure to hide actions of the parliament is a clear violation of the constitution.  A parliamentary session can only be held in closed doors only on matters that concerns the national security and public order,” Mufeed argued.

He added that in the case where a parliamentary vote goes to a stalemate the speaker should cast his vote and therefore it would not be a secret vote anyway, so it was “meaningless” to make parliamentary votes a secret ballot.

PPM MP Ali Arif also echoed similar remarks claiming that the current amendment excludes the impeachment votes taken against parliament speaker and deputy speaker so therefore it was very unjust.

He also added that the purpose of the amendment was “very cowardly” and affected the reputation of parliamentarians, and questioned the integrity of those MPs who had proposed such an amendment.

Meanwhile JP MP Alhan Fahmy speaking in the debate, suggested that it was not a wise decision to keep the vote open especially at a time the country was going through severe political turbulence and where there remained doubt over the security of MPs.

All the MDP MPs who spoke during today’s session supported the proposition arguing that members could be subjected to personal vendettas and hatred based on the way he or she voted.

“Threatened”

Today’s parliamentary session had to be called off after the vote as the parliament order was lost. Several MDP MPs took point of orders claiming that the government had influenced the vote by threatening MPs.

Speaking to Minivan News, former MDP Chairperson and MP Mariya Ahmed Didi claimed that she believed today’s vote was influenced and that MPs were “being intimidated”.

“Many MPs who are afraid to say it openly claimed they had received all sorts of threats from the government,” she said.

She added that in the current political environment where the police and the military have “openly brutalised MPs” and no action been taken against them, MPs had hesitated in supporting the amendment.

This she said was particularly reflected in DRP’s stand towards the votes.

“After their MPs were served summons for arrest the DRP, whom many thought would collaborate with [MDP] on this, were scared and didn’t see these as idle threats,” she explained.

Didi added that she and her party would not give up despite their disappointment in parliament today.

Earlier, JP MP Abdulla Jabir and MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor – also the party’s international spokesperson – were arrested along with several opposition figures including former SAARC Secretary General and Special Envoy to the former President, Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, former Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair and his wife Mariyam Faiz, while in an uninhabited island.

Police claimed that they found large amounts of “suspected” drugs and alcohol upon searching the island with a court warrant.

The arrests were made “based on information received by police intelligence,” police said. Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef told Haveeru that the suspects were arrested with alcohol and “hash oil”.

Following the arrests around midnight, the suspects were taken to Kulhudhufushi in Haa Dhaal Atoll, and Zaki was hospitalised.

Despite a police attempt to extend the detention periods all suspects including the two MPs have now been released by the Kulhudhufushi Magistrate Court, with the exception of Hamdan Zaki.

The opposition MDP alleged that the arrests were a politically-motivated attempt to disrupt parliament ahead of a no confidence motion against President Mohamed Waheed, and the amendment to voting procedure to make such votes secret. A second no-confidence motion against Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel was withdrawn this week pending the outcome of the secret vote amendment.

Ahead of the vote, Civil Court also issued an order on Sunday to take DRP MPs Mohamed Nashiz and Ali Azim into custody and present them in court.

The order was cancelled later the same day, on the grounds that the judge presiding over the case was out of the country.

Meanwhile, Presidents Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza has earlier said that it would use all threatened legal action “using all the powers of the government” against the People’s Majlis to “bring parliament back to the right path”. He made the remarkin an appearance on government-aligned private broadcaster DhiTV on October 25.

“The constitution and parliamentary rules of procedure clearly state which votes are to be conducted through secret ballot. The rest of the votes should be open,” he said.

Riza heavily criticised the committee decision to approve the amendment, insisting that it violated the parliamentary rules on conducting committees meetings and votes.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Committee decision on secret ballot overturned

Parliament’s Counsellor General Fathmath Filza has informed the General Affairs Committee that a decision to approve an amendment to the parliamentary rules of procedure was void as the meeting where it was voted through last week took place in violation of the rules.

An anonymous member of the committee told Sun Online yesterday that the committee meeting last week took place in the absence of both the chair and deputy chair.

The issue had to be tabled in the committee’s agenda again, the anonymous MP explained.

The meeting on October 23 was presided over by Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ali Azim while the amendment was reportedly voted through by four MPs of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

The former ruling party has a majority on the General Affairs Committee.

The amendment to the rules of procedure to conduct no-confidence motions through secret ballot was proposed by MDP MP Mohamed Shifaz after a similar amendment was withdrawn by Independent MP Ahmed Amir, who is also deputy chair of the committee.

The committee’s chair is DRP MP Abdulla Abdul Raheem.

The amendment to parliament’s standing orders or rules of procedure would have to be approved in a vote at the Majlis floor to become official.

The MDP has submitted no-confidence motions against both Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed and President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.

While a minister can be removed from his post through a simple majority of the 77 MPs in parliament, a two-thirds majority or 52 votes would be needed to impeach the president.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government threatens legal action against parliament

President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza has threatened legal action “using all the powers of the government” against the People’s Majlis to “bring parliament back to the right path” in an appearance on government-aligned private broadcaster DhiTV on October 25.

Referring to parliament’s General Affairs Committee approving an amendment to the rules of procedure to conduct no-confidence motions through secret ballot, Riza said that the government could not “turn a blind eye” to what he contended was a move that violated the constitution.

“The constitution and parliamentary rules of procedure clearly state which votes are to be conducted through secret ballot. The rest of the votes should be open,” he claimed.

Riza went on to heavily criticise the committee decision, insisting that it violated the parliamentary rules on conducting committees meetings and votes.

The formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has submitted no-confidence motions against both Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed and President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.

While the motion against Home Minister Jameel has been tabled in the agenda for November 14, the impeachment motion has yet to be tabled.

The MDP-dominated General Affairs Committee approved the amendment for a secret ballot last week with four votes in favour and none against, committee chair and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP for mid-Henveiru Ali Azim told local media. Only five MPs reportedly attended the committee meeting last week.

The amendment to parliament’s standing orders or rules of procedure would have to be approved in a vote at the Majlis floor to become official.

While a minister can be removed from his post through a simple majority of the 77 MPs in parliament, a two-thirds majority or 52 votes would be needed to impeach a sitting president.

Meanwhile, responding to Riza today, MDP Spokesperson and Henveiru South MP Hamid Abdul Gafoor told Minivan News that the party believed the remarks constituted a threat to violate separation of powers.

“It is simply second nature for the 7/2 police and military-backed coup-invoked dictatorship to use force to stay afloat,” the MP said.

Hamid had earlier tweeted that Abbas’s remarks were “open threats of use of force to stop secret ballot.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Majlis committee approves secret ballot for no-confidence votes

Parliament’s General Affairs Committee last week approved an amendment to the rules of procedure to conduct no-confidence motions through secret ballot.

The amendment was proposed by Maldivian Democratic Democratic (MDP) MP Mohamed Shifaz after a similar amendment was withdrawn by Independent MP Ahmed Amir.

The MDP-majority committee approved the amendment with four votes in favour and none against, committee chair and Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP for mid-Henveiru Ali Azim told local media. Only five MPs reportedly attended the committee meeting last week.

The amendment to parliament’s standing orders or rules of procedure would have to be approved in a vote at the Majlis floor to become official.

The MDP has submitted no-confidence motions against both Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed and President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.

While a minister can be removed from his post through a simple majority of the 77 MPs in parliament, a two-thirds majority or 52 votes would be needed to impeach a sitting president.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)