The four ruling party lawmakers officially challenged their disqualifications at the country's top court on Thursday.
Elections Commission on Wednesday disqualified the four lawmakers who were dismissed from the ruling party under the recent Supreme Court anti-defection ruling to announce by-elections.
Ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) late Tuesday officially removed four rebel lawmakers from the party amid a struggle to regain its majority in parliament.
PPM has been devastated by a revolt after as many as 10 lawmakers backed an opposition led move to unseat the parliament speaker Abdulla Maseeh earlier this month.
However, barring Dhidhdhoo lawmaker Abdul Latheef Mohamed, PPM had previously axed Thulusdhoo MP Mohamed Waheed Ibrahim, Maduvvaree MP Mohamed Ameeth and Villingili MP Saud Hussain after they publicly announced allegiance to deposed PPM leader Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.
All four lawmakers had refused to accept EC's decision vowing to challenge their disqualifications.
Speaking to reporters outside the Supreme Court after filing the challenge, Maduvvaree MP Ameeth insisted that the elections commission had no authority to disqualify lawmakers.
"We must get justice. Because it's a violation of rights of so many people who voted to elect us. So we have asked the court for a stay order [on the by-elections]," Ameeth said.
The dismissal of the four lawmakers was announced after an impromptu council sit-down chaired by president Yameen late Tuesday. The dismissals were officially conveyed to the parliament and the elections commission soon after.
Elections commission 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.
The ruling party however, has refused to allow the lawmakers to leave saying that their requests can only be processed after their respective disciplinary hearing are concluded.
PPM had in a letter asked the 10 lawmakers who backed the motion to rescind their signatures before midnight on Tuesday or face disciplinary action.
However, Avas understands that none of the lawmakers had yielded despite the threat of losing their seats over a recent anti-defection ruling by the country's top court.
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.
