Maldives: Opposition party set to move impeachment motion against President Muizzu
Male, Jan 29: The main opposition MDP, which holds a majority in the Maldivian Parliament, is planning to submit a motion to impeach President Mohamed Muizzu even as three members of his cabinet were denied approval during a parliamentary vote on Monday, according to media reports here.
The development comes a day after clashes broke out in Parliament on Sunday between pro-government MPs and opposition lawmakers over differences over the approval of four members of the pro-China President's cabinet.
Muizzu, 45, defeated India-friendly incumbent Ibrahim Mohamed Solih in the presidential runoff held in September last year.
"The MDP, in partnership with the Democrats, have gathered enough signatures for an impeachment motion. However, they have yet to submit it," Sun.com reported, quoting a lawmaker from the MDP.
The decision to submit an impeachment motion was taken unanimously in the parliamentary group meeting of the MDP held on Monday, The Edition.mv reported.
"The Constitution, along with the Parliament's standing orders, dictates that the president can be impeached with 56 votes," the Sun.com added.
The Parliament had recently amended its standing orders to make it easier to submit an impeachment motion.
The Maldivian Parliament has a total of 80 members. The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has 45, followed by its ally The Democrats (DEM) with 13 members. Of the ruling coalition of PPM-PNC, the Progressive Party of the Maldives has 2 while the People's National Congress has 13 members. There are three independents while the Jumhooree Party and the Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) have two each.
The gathering of signatures for an impeachment motion against the President comes a day after the PPM-PNC coalition, submitted no-confidence motions against Speaker Mohamed Aslam and Deputy Speaker Ahmed Saleem both from MDP.
Earlier in the day, Parliament voted to deny approval to Housing Minister Ali Haidar Ahmed, Islamic Minister Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, and Attorney General Ahmed Usham, while Economic Minister Mohamed Saeed narrowly survived the same fate himself, Sun.com reported.
After the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and The Democrats' parliamentary group decided to withhold parliamentary approval for four members of President Muizzu's cabinet ahead of the voting on Sunday, the pro-government MPs from the ruling party Progressive Party of Maldives and People's National Congress (PPM/PNC) coalition initiated a protest, obstructing the parliamentary sitting. Two MPs were injured during a brawl.
On November 20 last year President Muizzu made a formal request for the approval of his cabinet, two days after his administration took office.
The Parliament had been scheduled to vote on the cabinet on December 18, but the original report by the Government Oversight Committee was rejected. The Parliament held an extraordinary sitting on Sunday to take the vote on the committee's new report, which was passed on December 30, Sun.com reported.
But just ahead of the vote, the main opposition MDP, the largest party in the house, issued a three-line red whip to deny approval to the four cabinet members.
Soon after taking oath as the President of Maldives on November 17, Muizzu formally requested India to withdraw 88 military personnel from his country by March 15, saying the Maldivian people have given him a "strong mandate" to make this request to New Delhi.
Earlier on January 24, calling India the "most long-standing ally," the MDP and the Democrats had expressed concern about the Muizzu government's "anti-India stance."
The open support (for India) by the two parties had come a day after the Maldives government said a Chinese ship, equipped to carry research and surveys, would be docking at a Maldivian port after being permitted to make a port call for replenishment.
The permission to allow the Chinese ship had come amid strained ties between India and Maldives after President Muizzu made Beijing his first port of call early this month soon after assuming office. Traditionally, New Delhi has been the first port of call for a Maldivian President.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Editorial | The EC’s press meet dodged the core questions on “vote theft”
The Election Commission of India called a press conference to quieten the storm over “vote theft.” Instead of clarity, we got a combative ultimatum, selective talking points, and very little data that can actually reassure voters. In a moment when public trust is fragile, the EC chose to lecture and warn, not to explain and prove.
This row did not start with a rally or a TV debate. It began with Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) where 65 lakh names were reportedly deleted in the draft rolls. The Supreme Court had to step in and direct the EC to publish details of the deletions with reasons on district websites. Only after that order did Bihar’s CEO upload the list, and the EC publicly emphasised how quickly it complied. This timeline matters because it shows transparency came after judicial nudging, not before. That does not build confidence.
What the EC said — and what it didn’t
At the presser, the Chief Election Commissioner gave Rahul Gandhi seven days to either file a sworn affidavit with evidence or apologise to the nation. He also argued that “vote theft cannot happen” at the machine because a person can press the button only once, and stressed that roll preparation and voting are separate processes. These lines made headlines. But they also skirted the heart of the dispute: alleged large-scale, wrongful deletions and additions in the rolls ahead of a crucial state election.
The Commission explained away anomalies like “house number 0” and duplicate names as address-formatting or record-cleaning issues, and insisted the SIR is not a rush job. What it did not share was granular, verifiable evidence that wrongful deletions have been promptly corrected or that inclusion barriers are low for poor, migrant and first-time voters.
Why the press meet failed to convince
1) It fought a straw man
The EC focused on EVM tampering and “one person, one vote,” while the main charge is voter suppression via the rolls. Conflating machine integrity with roll integrity avoids the central pain point: who got cut, on what grounds, and how fast are they being restored.
2) Transparency arrived late, not early
Publishing reasons for deletions after a Supreme Court directive is good, but reactive. People want to see proactive disclosure: district-wise reason codes, ward/booth heatmaps of deletions, and a running correction log that shows how many names were restored after objections. The EC showcased speed of compliance (uploaded “within 56 hours”), not depth of transparency.
3) The burden of proof was pushed on citizens
A seven-day affidavit demand to a political opponent is theatre, not governance. The legal and moral burden sits with the authority controlling the rolls. If the EC believes the SIR is clean, it should publish audit trails, independent verification reports, and error rates by category (death, shift, duplication, “dead but alive” cases discovered and fixed). A podium warning cannot substitute for public evidence.
4) Too many tough questions went unanswered
Reporters flagged holes; the Commission largely sidestepped them. Simple queries remain: What is the false-positive deletion rate in the draft? What share of objections filed were accepted? How many deletions were reversed within the window? Without these figures, the presser looked defensive. Even business media called out the dodges.
5) The human stories cut through the spin
In the Supreme Court, “dead” voters walked in alive. Their testimony about the documents demanded to re-enter the rolls underscored how the costs of correction fall on the weakest. If deletion is easy and restoration is hard, the system is tilted. The EC did not convincingly address this asymmetry.
The trust deficit is now political capital
Opposition parties have turned the trust gap into street and parliamentary pressure — joint pressers, protest marches, even talk of an impeachment motion. You can disagree with their politics, but the scale of mobilisation shows how little the presser calmed the waters. When the referee is the story, the game is already in trouble.
What the EC should have done — and still can Publish the full diagnostics, not just a list
Release district-level dashboards showing reasons for each deletion, acceptance/rejection rates of objections, and time taken to restore names. Add a weekly errata log until final rolls close.
Independent audit, publicly presented
Commission a third-party audit (retired constitutional judges, CAG-grade auditors, and statisticians) of a representative sample of deletions and additions. Present the findings in an open hearing.
Lower the barrier to get back on the roll
If eleven documents are accepted under the SIR framework, ensure BLOs help citizens generate at least one low-friction proof on the spot. Mobile camps in bastis and panchayats should process restorations within days, not weeks.
Name-and-notify policy for the “declared dead”
When a person is marked deceased, the system should auto-trigger door-to-door verification and a public notice period before deletion. Where mistakes are found, the EC must publicly count and correct them.
Stop the optics, start the evidence
Ditch ultimatums to politicians. Hold a data briefing every 72 hours till September 1 with hard numbers, district comparatives, and case studies of corrected errors — not just assertions.
The bottom line
Here’s the thing: confidence in elections is built on boring paperwork that stands up to scrutiny. The EC’s press conference was heavy on rhetoric and light on proof. It answered charges of “vote theft” with moral outrage and legalese, not with the granular facts people needed. Until the Commission puts out verifiable, district-level evidence and shows that wrongful deletions are being fixed fast and fairly many citizens will remain unconvinced. An institution of this stature should not be asking for trust. It should be earning it, line by line, name by name.
