SC appeal rekindles challenge to Gota’s SL citizenship
CA sharply dismissed original writ Appeal seeks to overturn CA ruling Gota could become “stateless”: Counsel
Two civil society activists yesterday filed an appeal with the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the decision by the Court of Appeal (COA) last month to dismiss their writ application that sought to quash the dual citizenship certificate of Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) Presidential candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
Prof. Chandragupta Thenuwara and Gamini Viyangoda, co-conveners of the Purawesi Balaya civil society group, had filed a writ application in the COA challenging the authenticity of the dual citizenship certificate granted to the former Defence Secretary on November 21, 2005 by his brother, newly-sworn in President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
On Friday, October 4, after several days of hearings, a three-judge bench of the COA dismissed the application. The bench comprised COA President Yasantha Kodagoda and Justices Mahinda Samayawardana and Arjuna Obeysekera.
A detailed written order was issued by the court a week later, in which the bench stated that President Rajapaksa was the “repository” of executive power under the Constitution and was able to lawfully exercise the powers vested in a minister by law, even before the appointment of a Cabinet of Ministers. The Judges also ruled that the two activists had no standing to file the application, should have filed it several years ago, and had made the application for a collateral political purpose.
In the appeal filed yesterday, the petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to consider whether the COA erred in law by stating that the Constitution allowed a newly elected President to have exercised powers conferred on a minister by any written law before a Cabinet of Ministers is appointed.
The appeal further asks the court to revise the COA finding that the President alone was “the repository of the executive power of the people,” and to reconsider the way in which the COA interpreted the Constitution in reaching their verdict. The petitioners also ask the Supreme Court to reconsider the Coa’s findings that they were guilty of unexplained delay, that they had filed the application for a collateral purpose and not as genuine public interest litigation, and that they had not disclosed a sufficient interest to have and maintain the application.