Constitutional Comedy

First, I am relieved that the Supreme Court decided for the claimants today in the case of Suood, Nasheed, Anil and Nasheed vs. the State. Whilst I respect the arguments presented by the State, I felt that the claimants had a good case backed by strong and valid arguments. Since there has been a lot of discussion on it on the papers and in the blogsphere, I do not wish to repeat the arguments here.

What prompted me to write this article was a suggestion by a colleague this morning once the judgment was passed by the Supreme Court.

Amongst the States arguments, they argued that the dates stated in the provisional chapter of the constitution are not 'cut off' dates and are 'guidelines' which all concerned parties must 'try' to follow as opposed to there being a constitutional provision by which the concerned parties 'must' follow them.

The validity of the provisions of the transitional chapter and any other chapter of the constitution remain the same and my colleague suggested that its a pity that the Supreme Court found against the states argument that the dates were 'guidelines'. He went on to suggest that if the SC had accepted the States Arguments, perhaps the 5 year presidential term may also have been seen to be a guideline as opposed to a strict 'cut off period' and the President could in fact hold on to power for a couple more years give or take!

Although it makes no legal sense, its an interesting comedic notion - to say the least.