Parliament on Thursday declared the opposition led censure motion against the speaker as void after the elections commission disqualified four lawmakers over the recent Supreme Court ruling on anti-defection.
PPM has been accused of engineering the constitutional dispute case asking the Supreme Court to disqualify MPs who defect or violate party whip-lines and or are formally removed from their respective party.
The three judge bench hearing the case unanimously ruled in favour of the government. The court had also ordered relevant institutions to bring into effect an anti-defection law.
PPM late Tuesday officially removed four rebel lawmakers from the party amid a struggle to regain its majority in parliament.
Elections commission on Wednesday said the dismissals had been officially relayed to the parliament while in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling, the four lawmakers have been disqualified and their respective seats have been declared vacant.
PPM has been accused of engineering the constitutional dispute case asking the Supreme Court to disqualify MPs who defect or violate party whip-lines and or are formally removed from their respective party.
The three judge bench hearing the case unanimously ruled in favour of the government. The court had also ordered relevant institutions to bring into effect an anti-defection law.
Deputy speaker Moosa Manik who recently signed for PPM in a letter to lawmakers said as four MPs who had signed the censure motion against the speaker have been disqualified, the motion has been declared void as it no longer meets the required number of signatures.
After the now opposition coalition in March had filed a second motion to unseat Maseeh, the government had engineered an amendment to the parliament rules of procedure raising the number of lawmaker signatures required to file a censure motion against the speaker and his deputy from 15 to 42.
The opposition had filed the third censure motion against Maseeh with 45 lawmakers which included ten lawmakers from the ruling party.
The ten lawmakers had expressed their wish to leave the party but PPM had refused to allow the lawmakers to leave saying that their requests can only be processed after their respective disciplinary hearing are concluded.
PPM had later asked the 10 lawmakers who backed the motion to rescind their signatures before midnight on Tuesday or face disciplinary action which had been rejected by the rebel MPs.
The rebel lawmakers along with the opposition have continued to insist that they would not lose their seats in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling.
Amid the contrasting opinion, the Supreme Court late Sunday issued a statement in attempt to lift the confusion, but has instead cast more doubts over the disqualification of the rebel ruling party MPs.
The top court has said the ruling clearly states that it would not apply to any past events in retrospect to the latest precedent.
The constitutional ruling would not undermine or overrule the regulations and the charter of a particular party in the dismissal or action against a lawmaker.
Local legal experts who spoke to Avas said the interpretation of the Supreme Court means the ruling would not apply to the PPM lawmakers who had asked to be removed from the party before the court had settled the contentious constitutional dispute.
The PPM charter and the political parties Act clearly states that any party member would be automatically removed from the party once a formal request is submitted in writing.
The party's charter also clearly states that the party's disciplinary committee's mandate is limited to hearing cases against members accused of violating the party's policies.
