SC HAS NO JURISDICTION ON PRESIDENT’S PROCLAMATION – AG

Supreme Court precluded from exercising jurisdiction in respect of the alleged violations

The Attorney General yesterday (5) emphasized that the Supreme Court is precluded from exercising jurisdiction in respect of the alleged violations of petitioners’ Fundamental Rights and from granting the relief prayed for by the petitioner and that it has no jurisdiction on the President’s proclamation of dissolution of Parliament.

Attorney General Jayantha Jayasinghe with Solicitor General Drappula de Livera, Senior Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Rajaratnam, Additional Solicitors General Demuni de Silva and Farzana Jameel as well as Deputy Solicitor General Nerin Pulle, Senior State Counsel Shaheeda Barrie, State Counsels Kanishka de Silva and Manohara Jayasinghe instructed by Senior Additional Solicitor General Sepalika Tiranagama in his submission further stated that the dissolution of Parliament by the President does not constitute executive and administrative action.

Ten Fundamental Rights petitions against the declaration of dissolution of Parliament by the President came up before the Bench comprising Chief Justice Nalin Perera, Justices Buwaneka Aluwihare, Sisira J de Abrew, Priyantha Jayawardena, Prasanna S. Jayawardena, Vijith K. Malalgoda and Murdu Fernando.

Attorney General in his submission stated as follows:

The allegations on the dissolution of Parliament prior to the expiration of four years and six months and the intentional violation of the Constitution and an abuse of power by the President are not justifiable under Article 126 of the Constitution as there is a specific and prescribed procedure set out in Article 38(2) of the Constitution, setting out the manner in which the Supreme Court may exercise jurisdiction regarding her alleged intentional violation of the Constitution and abuse of power by the President.

Any Member of Parliament may by a writing addressed to the Speaker, give notice of a resolution alleging that the President is permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office by reason of mental or physical infirmity or that the President had been guilty of intentional violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, misconduct or corruption involving the abuse of powers of his office or any offence under any law, involving moral turpitude.

He is to set out full particulars of the allegation or allegations made and seek an inquiry and report thereon by the Supreme Court.no notice of such resolution shall be entertained by the Speaker or placed on the Order Paper of Parliament unless it complies with the provision and such resolution is passed by no less than one-half of the whole number of Members of Parliament.

Where such resolution is passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of members voting in its favour, the allegation or allegations contained in such resolution shall be referred by the Speaker to the Supreme Court for inquiry and report.

Where the Supreme Court reports to Parliament, the Parliament may by a resolution passed by not less than twothirds of the whole number of Member remove the President from office. when the Executive Head of State is vested with paramount power and duties, he should be given immunity in the discharge of his functions.

Article 38 has made provision for the removal of the President for intentional violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, misconduct or corruption and any offence under any law involving moral turpitude.

Allegations not justifiable under Article 126

Executive should be given immunity...