Former President and Leader of Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Maumoon Abdul Gayoom's legal representation in Court today said the case filed in Civil Court over PPM was devoid of facts. The case in Civil Court was filed by Naifaru Constituency MP Ahmed Shiyam and Hulhudhoo Constituency MP Mohamed Shahid. Former PG Ahmed Muizz is the legal representation for the former President. He also had raised questions over intention of filing the appeal as well.
The appeal was filed in High Court by a general member of the Party, Abbas Wafir. Following the appeal, Maumoon had requested to be an intervener into the case.
Abbas' lawyer Adam Asim noted two key points in filing the Civil Court appeal. He said the Civil Court ruling against Maumoon had failed to note which clauses of the Constitution Maumoon had breached. He also said the ruling had failed to note which Party laws Maumoon had breached. The appeal also noted that he did not believe that Party Leadership can be handed over to an Advisory without the consent of the Party President.
Members Shahid and Shiyam's lawyer Abdullah Muizz said their initial case had not stated that President Maumoon had acted against the Constitution, but rather clauses 37 and 39 of the Party laws. Clause 37 states that all Party Chapters and Committees must work on democratic principles. Clause 39 states that any Advisory Board must be compiled with the consent of the Council.
Maumoon's lawyer, Ahmed Muizz said there were no legal grounds for Abbas to file the appeal, adding that his intentions in filing the appeal were unclear. He also expressed concern over the speed of the hearing. While the hearings had begun, the appeal period is yet to be completed.
Muizz further said the Court rulings have to be in line with Party laws. The ruling now mandates the Party be administered by the Advisor. As per the Party laws, the Advisor has no official role in day to day administration of the Party or in deciding policy. Therefore, he argued that Court rulings have to adhere to that as well.
Muizz added that no Party can reject their laws, but the ruling in effect forces the said Parties to act against the laws.
PPM laws prohibits an incumbent President from holding the leadership position but can serve in an advisory capacity. In the same vein, any Council meetings chaired by the Advisor is also unacceptable. In the event the Leader is absent or cannot attend the session, the Council session will be managed by the Deputy Leader. If both Leader and Deputy Leader fail to attend session, then PG Leader will administer the session.
The lawyer also said Civil Court had ruled against both Maumoon and the Members. The Members had filed case stating the Council meetings were at a halt and a way to hold the meetings as according to the laws. The Members had also requested to nullify the sessions held by the Advisory Council. However, neither Member had filed case requesting a change in leadership of the Party.
Muizz said the case was filed by PPM but parts of the case referred to Maumoon and therefore the initial case was devoid of facts.
The first hearings was concluded soon afterward, with a second session to be held this afternoon. In concluding the hearings, the Judge said he will include PPM in the proceedings.
