The government of Maldives has said that it "is confident that its international partners would respect the democratic decisions of state institutions".
The comment comes after criticism from the United States of America, regarding the 'irregularities' in Monday's no-confidence motion against the speaker. In a statement issued on Tuesday, the U.S Embassy expressed concern over "irregularities that impeded a free and fair vote" on Monday, calling on the government "to restore faith in democratic processes".
READ MORE: "Concerned about irregularities" in speaker vote: US Embassy
In a statement issued on Tuesday evening, the government claimed that the vote was "free, fair and transparent" adding that it maintains it "unshakable commitment to uphold the law and democratic principles, and to respect the democratic decisions taken by institutions of the State""
"The Maldives Parliament, since its establishment in 1932, has been, and will continue to be, the strongest defender and the lead proponent of democratic values in the country," it noted.
It said that the no-confidence vote was "conducted in the most transparent manner and through a democratic process underpinned by the rule of law and specifically in accordance with the Constitution of Maldives and the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament".
If further highlighted that the government "remains engaged with international partners in further promoting democratic values in the country and in strengthening the democratic institutions in the Maldives".
48 ruling coalition members voted against the no-confidence motion against the speaker, as the opposition decided on boycotting the vote, after most of its members were dismissed from the parliament chambers.
Protest broke out in parliament after resuming at 1:30 pm on Monday, as the deputy speaker accepted the motion to hold a roll call vote. He held a vote through the electronic voting system, to determine whether there was any fault in the system. Article 164 of the parliament rule of procedure notes that electronic voting system must be used for voting, unless if and when there is definitive proof that the electronic voting system is faulty.
