A convict in the Cabinet
Can Prasanna sit without qualm in the House?
Cabinet Minister Prasanna Ranatunge sits comfortably in the House when, had it not been for a judge’s leniency, he should be doing hard labour at another Government institution: the Welikada Prison.
He sits not merely unfazed in Parliament as Government Chief Whip but occupies, unperturbed, a seat in the Cabinet as Sri Lanka’s Minister of Urban Development and Housing.
Not even two weeks ago he had been found guilty of demanding 64 million bucks, with the threat of violence, from a businessman who had wished to purchase a private Meethotamulla property, free of unauthorised dwellers who had made their home at the site. He had met Prasanna, who was then Chief Minister of the Western Province, at his residence in 2013 and sought his help to get the dwellers evicted from their homes.
After Prasanna, using his considerable powers as Chief Minister of the province in which the 2 acre land is sited, had successfully got the residents evicted from their homes, got the swamp filled and kept his side of the bargain, he moved to claim his pound of flesh from the businessman, the complainant Gihad Mendis. When he dilly-dallied paying the Rs. 64 million demanded, the Minister threatened him with violence if payment was not received forthwith.
The telephone conversation of May 29, 2015 he had with Prasanna, threatening him, was recorded by the complainant and presented as evidence which nailed Prasanna’s guilt. Furthermore, Prasanna had visited the complainant’s office the following day and threatened him again in filth.
The High Court judge Manjula Tillakaratne observed in his 52-page judgement that it was an abuse of state and political power inherent in Prasanna Ranatunga’s official position as the then Chief Minister of the Western Province, for him to have threatened the businessman in this obscene manner to instil fear into the complainant.
The judge also noted that while he found the complainant, Gihad Mendis, was telling the truth, he found the dock statement made by the accused, Prasanna Ranatunga, to be false. In other words, he had perjured, he had lied on oath in court. The High Court convicted Prasanna Ranatunga of the crime of extortion for ‘getting promissory notes signed through intimidation’.
The counsel for Prasanna, Anil Silva PC, pleading in mitigation of sentence, stated: ‘His house in Udugampola was completely destroyed during the recent incidents. As a result, his daughter’s wedding was also delayed, and she is also suffering from depression at the moment. My client is a Cabinet Minister. The world would believe that Sri Lanka cannot maintain a stable Cabinet if he was to be severely punished. On behalf of the country, I request a lesser sentence for the charges against him.’
Appearing for the AG’s Department, Senior Deputy Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris stated:
‘This is a case of the accused threatening a businessman named Gihad Mendis, demanding Rs. 64 million to get the necessary approval to fill a swamp in the Meethotamulla area and to evict the illegal occupants there, while serving as the Chief Minister of the Western Provincial Council. The rulers of the country should be guided by High Court’s verdict so that ordinary people won’t be intimidated by those using official power and positions. I request the court to give him an appropriate punishment which will create a fear of the law and send a strong message to the society.’
The judge, after considering the submission, sentenced Prasanna Ranatunga on June 6 to two years rigorous imprisonment. The Court also imposed a fine of Rs 25 million, with a further 9 months in prison, if unpaid and Rs. 1 million as compensation to the complainant Gihad Mendis, with a further 3 months prison term, if unpaid. The sentence of two years imprisonment was suspended for a term of 5 years.
As a result, Prasanna walked free from court and has since filed for appeal. But does his decision to appeal against the High Court verdict hold in suspense his conviction, render him innocent of extortion unless he is found guilty again by an apex court?
Nay, while it is true that a man is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty, once he is found guilty by a competent court, he remains guilty until he proves his innocence to the satisfaction of a superior court. Prasanna Ranatunga lost his innocence on June 6 when the High Court judge pronounced him guilty of extortion and will remain a convicted extortionist until the day the Appeal or Supreme Court quashes the High Court verdict and frees him from the stain, releases him from the burden of carrying the cross of guilt.
Under Article 89 of the Constitution, it shall be a disqualification to be a member of Parliament ‘ if he is serving a sentence of imprisonment (by whatever name it is called) for a term not less than six months imposed after conviction for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than two years.’
The fact that Prasanna’s two-year prison sentence was suspended for 5 years doesn’t mean he’s off the legal hook, he is still serving a sentence of probation of five years. A suspended sentence is where a judge sentences a defendant to a prison term but then delays imposing the sentence in order to let the defendant serve pris
on time on probation.
Not for two but for five years the prospect of being sent to jail will hang over Prasanna. Should he commit a similar offence within the next five years, the two-year prison term will fall on him and he will be handed the ‘ go straight to jail’ card, pronto. Only by not committing a similar crime during this five-year period will he be taken ‘as discharged from the sentence.’ The conviction, however, will forever remain on his criminal record, unless cleared in appeal.
A loophole, in relation to Article 89, exists in Section 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code which states: ‘A suspended sentence of imprisonment shall be taken as being a sentence of imprisonment for the purpose of any law, except any law providing for disqualification for or loss of office or for the forfeiture or suspension of pensions or other benefits.’ But does it apply to ‘elected’ office? Doesn’t the constitutional Article override this section? This is a matter that will have to be determined by the Supreme Court.
However, the day after the judgement, the Election Commissioner and the Speaker rushed to interpret the effect a suspended sentence would have on Article 89 and expressed the view that since it suspends the jail term, the disqualification did not apply and the minister was free to retain his seat.
The politically appointed Election Commissioner, whose official job is to accept nominations and conduct elections when ordered and declare the results, opined to a newspaper, ‘for an imprisonment term of not more than two years, an MP should complete a jail term of at least six months or complete the whole two-year jail term for the abolition of Parliament membership.’
If the criteria for the disqualification in Article 89 is whether an MP, convicted of a crime punishable for a term not less than two years, has served some time in jail, then any MP, convicted of such a heinous offence, will automatically escape Article 89’s disqualification if the court grants him bail pending appeal. By granting bail, the court is suspending the jail term until the day the appeal is finally
determined by the Appeal or Supreme Court.
This procedure can take more than five years. Until the date of the final outcome, the MP will not physically be in prison but free to roam, with his sentence only hanging over his head, suspended in the air.
This line of reasoning that an MP must spend time in jail for the disqualification to operate will, if taken to its logical extreme, enable a future Finance Minister or even a Prime Minister, even if convicted of defrauding the Central Bank of billions but freed on bail pending appeal, to remain a member of Parliament and retain his position as Finance Minister or Prime Minister for the rest of his elected fiveyear term, on the ground he has not spent a day in prison.
With such politically expedient interpretations ruling the Governmental roost, a fortified Prasanna Ranatunga is enabled to stroll into the Temple of Parliament where the People’s Sovereignty lies enshrined, regardless of the moral sacrilege he commits on hallowed ground. Regardless, too, of the international repugnance he invites upon the whole of Lanka when he shameless sits as a convicted Minister in the cabinet, with the Damocles Sword hanging suspended over his head.
The 21st Amendment draft, masquerading as 19A, has been put forward four weeks ago by its promoter, Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, as the new panacea for the political ills that bedevil the country. Though embraced by the Prime Minister, it has found no takers even in the cabinet and is still passed around like a religious offering at a pinkama.
Be that as may, any new amendment should include a new draft of Article 89(d) which deals with disqualification for an MP to sit in Parliament if convicted and sentenced to jail. In its present form, it has left room for ambiguity.
The new draft should explicitly spell it out that, if an MP is convicted of a criminal offence which carries a term of imprisonment of no less than two years, the MP stands automatically disqualified, irrespective of the sentence imposed and regardless whether it’s suspended or not.
Or else, convicted criminals in Parliament will become Sri Lanka’s official lawmakers.