Some opposition members stated that the situation which results due to violating the Constitution does not constitute it a ‘situational necessity’ and every bill passed without the mandatory 43 votes is invalid.
Although the Constitution states that any law which has to be abided by the people must be passed with majority votes, a parliamentary vote was passed earlier this week on amendments to three electoral bills with the votes of 31 members of the ruling party, under imposition of ‘situational necessity’, sparking outrage and criticism from the opposition members and lawyers.
Tweeting in response to the bill, Kendhoo MP and lawyer Ali Hussain stated that a situation arising due to the violation of the Constitution cannot be considered a ‘situational necessity’.
He said that barring 12 members from entering the parliament and presiding over the sessions while a no-confidence motion was submitted against the Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Maseeh with 45 signatures from MPs are clear violations of the Constitution.
Kaashidhoo MP Faisal Naseem stated that the fault lies with the parliament, as the 12 opposition members were illegally thrown over the wall of the parliament building. Hence, they cannot be held responsible if the mandatory number of members were not present in the parliament, he said.
Faisal said instead of imposing such bills, the parliament should pass a bill that would make it mandatory to employ Maldivian youth at senior positions in the tourism industry, and allow the 12 members to carry out their duty.
Meanwhile the opposition had repeatedly stated that the only reason such amendments are being brought to the law without having the mandatory number of votes, is to impose certain conditions on the opposition leaders and raise difficulty for them to run in the election.