Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi, the esteemed former Chief Justice of the Maldives, has asserted that the Attorney General lacks the jurisdiction to impede any parliamentary decisions or circumstances.

Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi's statement stems from the circulating perception that the current Attorney General, Ibrahim Riffath, holds the view that the Parliament does not possess the authority to influence the decisions made by the Attorney General.

The Attorney General opted to provide a written response instead of personally attending the parliamentary session to address the allegations questioning his trustworthiness, citing his involvement in the sale of a portion of Maldivian territorial waters during the Chagos border dispute.

Several political parties currently engaged in parliamentary proceedings have asserted that the evidence clearly indicates that the State's Attorney General failed to advocate for the best interests of the Maldives in the Chagos-Maldives border dispute.

Opposition parties contend that the current government was involved in the sale of Maldivian territorial waters during the dispute, emphasizing the gravity of border disputes and the potential adverse impact on citizens if even a small portion of Maldivian territory is lost.

According to Speaker of the Parliament Mohamed Nasheed, in response to the choice presented to Attorney General Riffath to either be physically present in the Parliament or provide a written statement regarding this matter, Riffath exercised his right to respond through written words.

The Speaker of Parliament has intervened in the matter concerning the difference in opinions among members of Parliament regarding the appropriate response from the Attorney General. The Speaker has resolved to seek guidance from the Supreme Court in order to proceed with clarity on the issue.