COUNSEL SAYS PARLIAMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE CHALLENGED IN COURT

PM’S request for Speaker’s ruling on SC pronouncements

President’s Counsel K. Kanag Iswaran appearing for the Prime Minister yesterday (29) submitted in Supreme Court that the proceedings in Parliament could not be challenged in any court or place out of Parliament. Two rights petitions disputing the request made by the Prime Minister for a ruling of the Speaker on the implications and/ or Constitutionality of impugned incidental pronouncement in the Supreme Court Judgment of the “Singarasa Case” came up before the Bench comprising Justices Priyasath Dep and Anil Gooneratne.

Counsel Kanag Iswaran along with the Attorney General raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petitions.

Counsel Kanag Iswaran submitted that Prime Minister made the purported statement in Parliament.

It is an act of the Prime Minister in Parliament. Under Special Privileges of Parliament Act, it cannot be challenged in this court.

He cited Section 3 (Freedom of Speech and debate) of Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, Part I (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) which states there shall be freedom of speech, debate and proceedings in Parliament and such freedom of speech, debate or proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any Court or place out of Parliament.

Deputy Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne with Deputy Solicitor General Nerin Pulle and State Counsel Suren Gnanaraj appearing for the Attorney General and the President raising Preliminary objections on the maintainability of the petitions as the statements were made in Parliament, one could not proceed with these petitions.

Petitioner Dharshana Weraduwage appearing for himself submitted that he was not challenging the statement made by the Prime Minister in Parliament but the President as Executive must uphold and ensure the Constitution.

The Court fixed the matter to be supported on August 31.

Petitioner N. Dharshana Weraduwage cited Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and the Attorney General naming him in the capacity as Attorney General as well as for the President Maithripala Sirisena.

Petitioner Dharshana Weraduwage appearing for himself submitted that he was not challenging the statement made by the Prime Minister in Parliament

The Supreme Court, in the Singarasa Case, made a pronouncement that “The Constitution of Sri Lanka and the prevailing legal regime do not provide for release or re-trial of a convicted person after his conviction is confirmed by the Highest Appellate Court.”

Supreme Court had ruled that therefore the State did not have the legal authority to execute the decision of the Human Rights Committee to release the convict or grant a re-trial.

It had noted that the government couldn’t be expected to act in any manner which was contrary to the Constitution.

The Court had also made pronouncements denying the constitutional competence of the President to accede the Optional Protocol of the ICCPR.

The Petitioner states the Prime Minister had said in Parliament that the Government reconfirms the continued validity and applicability of the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and is firmly committed to implement its provisions.

Petitioner also states that the Prime Minister had remarked that these Supreme Court’s pronouncements denying constitutional competence of the President to accede the Optional Protocol of the ICCPR are obiter dicta (An incidental or passing remark, opinion, etc) being unnecessary for the determination of the Singarasa’s application and do not serve as binding authority on the relevant question.

Petitioner complains that in the event of such a ruling, it may trigger a Constitutional crisis.

He maintains that such a ruling may be a clear violation of many Articles of the Constitution including Article 120 on Constitutional Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Article 125 on Constitutional Jurisdiction in the interpretation of the Constitution and Article 129 on Consultative Jurisdiction as well as Article 3 on the Sovereignty of the People, Article 4 on the Separation of Powers.

The Court had also made pronouncements denying the constitutional competence of the President to accede the Optional Protocol of the ICCPR.

He contends that the person (the President) responsible for the appointment of the Prime Minister is unable to take prompt and suitable action to prevent the happening of the crisis shall be a breach of Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner. Another similar Petition was filed by Nagantha Kodituwakku.

K. Kanag Iswaran with Suren Fernando and Niranjan Arulpragasam instructed by G.G. Arulpragasam appeared for the Prime Minister.