Replacing the Appointed - Part TWO - Political absurdity, judicial popycock and legislative blunder

By: wish4m zahir

Of course there is little need to go into the little intricate details of the legality and constitutionality of President Nasheed's move to replace the eight appointed. This was pointed out in part one of this post. Again, I would like to stress on the point that I have nothing but the utmost of respect to the former Minister Mr. Nasheed and the arguments that I have presented in the preceding part of this post are purely academic in form.

Nevertheless, the part where I emphasize on the political absurdity has been dealt with some detail in the first part. This is where the discussion over the President vs the Parliament comes in. But more can be said over the second part of the title to this post. As mentioned previously, the whole problem here stems from the fact that there are no provisions in the new constitution, even in the chapter on transition, which talks of what happens to the eight appointed. This is the part where the legislative blunder comes in.

Rewinding back four or five years, as the wave of reforms swept the country (and still is breaking) the focus was pure and simple; that the current (as he then was) President Maumoon had to go, or alternatively if he does manage to get himself re-elected with the impending Presidential elections, that he would be essentially stripped of all the controversial powers alongside the more nobler notions of separating the three state powers, and creating more democratic institutions. This was the bonus in it all.

At any rate, the legislature is made up of human beings and its within our nature to be cumbersome in our actions. And it was one such blunder that the legislature never foresaw the matter of the appointed eight.

Having said that, the legislative blunder could have been easily remedied or rectified by the Attorney General or the President. All it would take would be a simple reference of the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation of the constitution on the matter, as is provided for in the constitution itself. Mr. Nasheed points out in his post that this would have been the more amiable approach that could have been taken by the current administration, and I strongly agree with this. This is where the part of ‘judicial poppycock comes in.

Alright, to put it more bluntly, the eight appointed were sworn in by the Chief Justice of the nation in the presence of the President. Of course this is natural and statutorily sane. And the second part is the funnier one. When the eight sacked took the matter to the Supreme Court, who was there to throw the case out? The Chief Justice, again. If he accepted the case, it would have been equal to the instance where he would be claiming that his administration of oath was by itself null and void. Poppycock is it not. Of course one can avoid the argument by dismissing his function at the ceremony as purely formal in nature, being stipulated for in the constitution. But would that undermine the very oath the appointed eight took?

Thus is my case! The whole problem that had arisen out of all this was a product of legislative blunder, fueled by political absurdity and made even worse by judicial poppycock. The one consolation in all of this would come when February 15 arrives and the Parliamentary spin off is over and done with. All in all, it is all in a big chunky mess.