K. Male'
|
15 Aug 2017 | Tue 11:14
From left to right: MPs Ameeth, Latheef, Saud and Waheed
From left to right: MPs Ameeth, Latheef, Saud and Waheed
Raajjemv
Floor Crossing Motion
MPs summoned to Supreme Court to sign statements
Hearings of case concluded
Sentencing next
MPs had requested to nullify EC verdict on them

The four MPs who had been stripped from their Parliament by the Elections Commission (EC), has been summoned to Supreme Court to sign their statements.

Members of Parliament for Thulusdhoo Constituency Mohamed Waheed Ibrahim, Vilingili Constituency Saud Hussain, Maduvvari Constituency Mohamed Ameeth and Dhihdhoo Constituency Abdul Latheef Mohamed had filed case in Supreme Court asking to review the decision made by EC regarding their seats.

The hearings of the case had been concluded on Sunday; the Court will issue the verdict next.

All MPs except MP Latheef are under Police custody.

On Sunday’s hearings, the Court heard statements from both sides.

In concluding the trial, Chief Justice Abdullah Saeed announced that in the next hearings, the Court will deliver a verdict. However, he did not specify a date for the sentencing.

Hisaan Hussain, lawyer for MP Waheed, made the argument that EC had stripped the MPs from their seats and announced bi-elections on biased grounds and had abused the Supreme Court ruling on floor crossing.

Hisaan also noted that Supreme Court was the final authority on status of MPs and their seats, as per clause 74 of the Constitution. She said in the event one of the three stipulations in the clause had occurred, then the Commission must send it to Supreme Court. As such, she argued that EC had no grounds to declare his seat void.

Ali Shah, lawyer for MP Saud, also argued on the same points, stating that ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives had no good intentions.

He said that MP Saud was removed from the Party on April 13th, removed him from the slot in the National Security Committee and the Party viber group. Shah further noted that it was not possible for Saud to be dismissed from the Party twice, without having had registered again.

Prosecution had argued that until their dismissal from the Party on July 18th, they were still members from the Party and therefore, the Supreme Court ruling was applicable to them.

- comment