SC HEARS FR PETITIONS AGAINST DISSOLUTION
‘PREZ CAN’T ACT LIKE ALICE IN WONDERLAND’
Challenging all arguments in favour of the dissolution of Parliament, the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday heard ten petitions arguing that President Maithripala Sirisena must abide by the Constitution when exercising Executive powers, and could not act like “Alice in Wonderland”.
Ten petitioners yesterday informed court that the President’s powers to dissolve parliament under Article 33 (2) (c) of the constitution was not an unfettered power, and was restricted by Article 70 (1). All counsel maintained that Article 33 was an empowering provision, which was subject to procedure.
PROCLAMATION, ILLEGAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL
MEMBER OF EC FILES PETITION
ARTICLE 33 IS NOT UNFETTERED
NOTHING CAN FLOW FROM ILLEGALITY
K. Kanag Iswaran PC told court that the proclamation of the President had missed the “elephant in the constitution’ which was Article 70 (1).
K. Kanag Iswaran appearing for the leader of the Tamil National Alliance R. Sampanthan said the actions of the President were illegal.
The Bench comprised Chief Justice Nalin Perera, Justices Priyantha Jayawardane and Prasanna S. Jayawardena.
President’s Counsel Kanag Iswaran continuing his submission stated that the President is empowered under Article 33(2) (c) of the Constitution to summon, prorogue or dissolve Parliament.
But Article 70 (1) prescribes the Procedure to do so. It describes of who, how and when can be made the proclamation, he said.
The present tenure of Parliament ends on 11th September 2020 unless dissolved earlier, he underlined and emphasized that the procedure for dissolution of Parliament under Article 70(1) must be complied with.
The petitioner is seeking an Interim Order from the Court to suspend the operation of the proclamation dissolving the Parliament and a declaration that proclamation of dissolving Parliament infringes the fundamental rights.
He is asking the Court for a declaration that the decisions and/or directions in the proclamation are null and void ab initio (ineffective from the beginning) and of no force or effect in law.
Similar petitions were filed by Kabir Hashim and Akila Viraj Kariyawasam of the UNP, Lal Wijenayeke of the United Left Front, CPA, Member of the Election Commission Prof. Ratnajeevan. H. Hoole, Attorney-at-law G.C.T. Perera, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, All Ceylon Makkal Congress and Mano Ganesan MP.
K. kanag Iswaran PC, Thilak Marapana PC, Dr Jayampathi Wickremaratne PC, M.a. sumanthiran PC. Viran Corea, Ikram Mohamed PC, J.c. weliamuna PC, Ronald Perera PC, Hisbullah Hijaz and Suren Fernando appeared for the petitioners.
Gamini Marapane PC with Nalin Marapane, Sanjeeva Jayawardane PC and Ali Sabry PC appeared for the intervenient petitioners who opposed the main petitions.