Supreme Court has ruled that the Parliament Secretariate misinterpreted the Parliament Standing Order when it canceled the session that would have seen a no-confidence resolution be filed against the Speaker of the Parliament because the Deputy Speaker was absent.
This comes after MDP sought legal clarification from the top court as it was left frustrated by the parliament's decision to cancel the session as the Deputy Speaker MP Eva Abdullah was on sick leave.
Parliament's standing order dictates that a session that could remove its Speaker can only be chaired by the Deputy Speaker.
But the top Court ruled today that the Secretariate has been wrong in interpreting the Parliament Standing Order.
It said in its ruling that the determining that only the Deputy Speaker can chair a parliamentary session that may remove the Speaker was unconstitutional. The top court said that the five other MPs can chair parliamentary sessions in the absence of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker as per the Standing Order of the Parliament.
The Supreme Court bench unanimously ruled that any other MP could chair the session which could remove the Speaker.
It also ruled that if there is a legitimate reason why the session that would remove the Speaker is delayed, there are no legal hurdles for the Parliament to go forward with its responsibilities as stipulated by the Constitution, laws, and the Parliament Standing Order.
