Former President Mohamed Nasheed stated today that the power to amend the Constitution lies directly with the people.
His comments come in response to a petition filed in the Supreme Court by former MP Ali Hussain, seeking to annul a constitutional amendment that would cause a member of Parliament to lose their seat if they switch political parties or are expelled from their original party.
In a post on X, Nasheed expressed his belief that the authority to amend the Constitution rests with Parliament. He emphasized that any changes to the Constitution should be accompanied by a "vote" in accordance with constitutional procedures. He further stated that, ultimately, the people should have the power to directly influence constitutional amendments.
Nasheed’s comments were followed by a post on his unofficial account, where he questioned whether the removal of members from Parliament due to party switching or dismissal could be considered an amendment. He suggested that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret such matters, adding that the Court holds the power to provide clarity on constitutional interpretations.
Meanwhile, during the ongoing Supreme Court hearings, the Attorney General's Office, representing the prosecution, argued that the Court lacks procedural jurisdiction to hear the case. However, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that it does indeed have the jurisdiction to proceed with the case.
His comments come in response to a petition filed in the Supreme Court by former MP Ali Hussain, seeking to annul a constitutional amendment that would cause a member of Parliament to lose their seat if they switch political parties or are expelled from their original party.
In a post on X, Nasheed expressed his belief that the authority to amend the Constitution rests with Parliament. He emphasized that any changes to the Constitution should be accompanied by a "vote" in accordance with constitutional procedures. He further stated that, ultimately, the people should have the power to directly influence constitutional amendments.
Nasheed’s comments were followed by a post on his unofficial account, where he questioned whether the removal of members from Parliament due to party switching or dismissal could be considered an amendment. He suggested that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret such matters, adding that the Court holds the power to provide clarity on constitutional interpretations.
Meanwhile, during the ongoing Supreme Court hearings, the Attorney General's Office, representing the prosecution, argued that the Court lacks procedural jurisdiction to hear the case. However, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that it does indeed have the jurisdiction to proceed with the case.
