Did the 'political stunt' backfire in the Maldives?
On 9th December 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that the cabinet ministers rejected by the parliament cannot remain at their ministerial positions, forcing the President to dismiss some of the best minds in his party.
IT WAS the first time in recent history of the Maldives that its full cabinet resigned at the same time. On 29th June 2010, the government of Maldives shocked the country with resignation of all its ministers. Their lame excuse was simple, yet many raised questions about its validity even at the very beginning. Ministers resigned accusing opposition controlled parliament of what they described as ‘subverting constitution by hijacking executive powers'.
Following the resignation, the country was plunged into a huge political crisis which led to arrests of opposition parliamentarians and an outbreak of numerous violent protests in its small capital. Later the judiciary joined the ‘drama’ declaring that the arrests made by the government were unlawful. On 11th July, the chief justice declared that the arrest of MPs by the government were unlawful and ordered to release the MPs, making the political drama much more complicated than ever.
Political development in the country made it very clear that the opposition with its majority in the Majlis (Parliament) was trying to dictate terms to the President and in trying to make his duties harder than ever at every turn. Even before the ‘resignation drama’, the Foreign minister narrowly escaped the parliament's no-confidence vote over his efforts to strengthen ties with Israel, and the education minister along with the finance minister were next on the agenda to face the same ‘torture’ in the parliament.
After a week of turmoil in the country, the President could not run the country without a cabinet. On 7th July 2010, with no change in parliament or opposition’s stand on issues, President Nasheed re-appointed the very same ministers giving the opposition the best chance to seriously ‘politically wound’ the president and his ruling party. Many asked the question as to what exit strategy the President had in his mind when the reappointed cabinet had to be ratified by the same hostile parliament.
The argument of the government was that the endorsement of the Parliament is only ceremonial and the appointment of the cabinet is governed by articles 129 and 130 of the constitution and that the cabinet minister can be removed only under the provisions of Articles 137 (a),139, and 130 (b)1. It was also argued that the cabinet ministers cannot be dismissed even if the appointees are rejected by the Parliament.
Political development in the country made it very clear that the opposition with its majority in the Majlis (Parliament) was trying to dictate terms to the President and in trying to make his duties harder than ever at every turn. Even before the ‘resignation drama’, the Foreign minister narrowly escaped the parliament's no-confidence vote over his efforts to strengthen ties with Israel, and the education minister along with the finance minister were next on the agenda to face the same ‘torture’ in the parliament.
After a week of turmoil in the country, the President could not run the country without a cabinet. On 7th July 2010, with no change in parliament or opposition’s stand on issues, President Nasheed re-appointed the very same ministers giving the opposition the best chance to seriously ‘politically wound’ the president and his ruling party. Many asked the question as to what exit strategy the President had in his mind when the reappointed cabinet had to be ratified by the same hostile parliament.
The argument of the government was that the endorsement of the Parliament is only ceremonial and the appointment of the cabinet is governed by articles 129 and 130 of the constitution and that the cabinet minister can be removed only under the provisions of Articles 137 (a),139, and 130 (b)1. It was also argued that the cabinet ministers cannot be dismissed even if the appointees are rejected by the Parliament.
Then came the time for the opposition to strike a huge blow; the opposition controlled parliament endorsed only five appointees and rejected the other seven. Even then the government did not back down. The president made it clear that his appointees will not resign and repeated his legal argument. However the opposition did not let the government continue with what they described it as an ‘illegal cabinet’. The opposition MPs took the matter to Supreme Court, yet again inviting the judiciary to intervene.
Supreme Court spoke in favor of the opposition, making it clear that the president’s argument does not hold ground. On 9th December 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that the cabinet ministers rejected by the parliament cannot remain at their ministerial positions, forcing the President to dismiss some of the best minds in his party.
As the opposition celebrates the ruling of the Supreme Court, the government is left with no less than a huge void that the President needs to fill up very soon if the government is to function appropriately. The initial resigning of the cabinet itself may have been a short sighted uncalculated move, however one thing remains for sure; it is not easy to outsmart the constitution.
As the opposition celebrates the ruling of the Supreme Court, the government is left with no less than a huge void that the President needs to fill up very soon if the government is to function appropriately. The initial resigning of the cabinet itself may have been a short sighted uncalculated move, however one thing remains for sure; it is not easy to outsmart the constitution.
Login
 Login through Social ID
|
Not finding what you are looking for? Search here.
