Conviction for contempt of court cause for Ranjan's expulsion from parliament: CA
Samagi Jana Balawegaya MP Ranjan Ramanayake’s conviction for Contempt of Court by the Supreme Court disqualifies him from holding his Parliamentary seat as per the Constitution, the Court of Appeal (CA) has stated.
A two-judge Court of Appeal bench stated this in its judgment on Monday, dismissing the writ petition filed by Mr Ramanayake seeking an interim injunction preventing the S e c retary General of Parliament from taking any action regarding his parliamentary seat.
The Secretary General of Parliament and the Attorney General were respondents in Mr Ramanayake’s petition.
The lengthy judgement, delivered after hearing extensive arguments from both sides by the bench comprising Court of Appeal President Arjuna Obeyesekere and Judge Mayadunne Corea, noted that Mr Ramanayake’s conviction for Contempt of Court and subsequent four year prison sentence disqualifies him from holding his MP seat in terms of Article 89( d) read with 91( a) of the Constitution.
Article 89 deals with disqualification to be an elector. Since Mr Ramanayake was sentenced to a four- year prison term, the CA noted that he could not hold his Parliamentary seat as under Article 89( d), anyone sentenced to a prison term of more than two years is disqualified from being elector for seven years after completion of his sentence.
Article 91 deals with disqualification to be an MP and 91( a) notes that any person who has been subject to disqualifications under Article 89 cannot be an MP.
The Court also noted that the Secretary General of
Parliament was performing a “ministerial act” in accordance with legal authority and established procedures when writing to the Election Commission announcing a Parliamentary seat had fallen vacant.
The bench pointed out that “with a vacancy staring in his face, the Secretary General has no option but is required by law to inform the Election Commission of such vacancy. In doing so, he is carrying out a purely ministerial act.”
Such a purely ministerial act is not subject to be quashed by a court order. Moreover, if the Secretary General fails to act at this stage, a court order can be obtained compelling him to do so, the CA judgments noted.
Mr Ramanayake's counsel had argued that although contempt of court was a criminal offence, it was not an offence that disqualified one from being an elector.
The CA, however, refused to go into the question as the Supreme Court had ruled it to be such an offence in the case of “S B Dissanayake v Priyani Wijesekera, Secretary General of Parliament and others.”
“Once the Supreme Court has determined that contempt of Court is an offence, it is not open for this Court to take a contrary view,” the judgment stresses.
Faisz Musthapha, PC, with M A Sumanthiran, PC, Ashan Fernando, Suren Fernando, Keerthi Tillekeratne, Khyati Wikramanayake and Sanjit Dias appeared for Mr Ramanayake.
Senior Additional Solicitor General Indika Demuni De Silva, PC, with Senior Deputy Solicitor General Nerin Pulle, S e n i o r S t ate Counsel Suharshi Herath, Dr Avanti Perera and Suren Gnanaraj, and State Counsel Indumini Randeny appeared for the respondents.