Didi: There’s still time to go to Supreme Court to halt the referendum

There’s still time to go to the Supreme Court to halt the referendum on implementing a constitutional amendment to combine the presidential election and the parliamentary election, says former Chief Justice Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi.

The Parliament had been in recess in January, when the ruling People’s National Congress (PNC) called an extraordinary sitting, and presented a constitutional amendment to merge the two major elections. The ruling party used its supermajority to pass the bill on February 10, once the Parliament reopened, and on February 16, President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu decreed that a public referendum on whether to implement the constitutional amendment or not would be held on April 4 – the same day as the local council elections.

At a press conference hosted on Sunday afternoon by influential figures who are advocating against combining the two elections, Didi said that the decision by the Parliament to pass the constitutional amendment lacks legitimacy.

He said that the move to hold an extraordinary sitting to present the constitutional amendment while the Parliament had been in recess resulted in loss of procedural legitimacy.

He also said that the bill does not state the reason for holding the two elections on the same day, and that the only arguments in favor of the move are coming from speeches by President Muizzu and his political allies – showing the amendment was motivated by personal gain.

“…Some address by the President or some speech by the President… He says he decided this or he decided to propose that… This shows this is something personal,” said Didi.

Didi believes the Parliament passed the bill without taking the time it requires to properly go through the stages that such constitutional amendments require.

“The passage of this quicker than normal legislature is also a reason for the loss of legitimacy,” he said.

Didi said that the proposed question by President Muizzu for the referendum itself is unconstitutional.

He said that what the people should be asked isn’t whether they are in favor of his ratifying the constitutional amendment, but whether the people back the decision by the Parliament to amend the constitution.

“Not whether they are in favor of ratifying it. It is therefore an unconstitutional question that is being asked,” he said.

Didi said that such amendments must be made because it is the will of the people, not because if is something that a specific individual or a Parliament elected for a five-year term desire.

He said that officials elected for a five-year term do not represent the entire people in perpetuity, but are in office only temporarily.

Didi does not believe such fundamental amendments must be made unless by composing a Special Parliament.

“There’s still time to lodge a case with the Supreme Court and have this removed. Because the amendment itself is unconstitutional, and because the referendum decree is an unconstitutional referendum,” he said.