CPA bid to unseat SF

Dayasri calls Deshapriya political animal ...

By Shamindra Ferdinando-February 24, 2016, 10:04 pm 

Dr Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) on Tuesday claimed that his outfit had refrained from seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court in respect of the People’s Alliance (PA) move to accommodate Ratnasiri Wickremanayake and Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe through the National List due to fear of being given an adverse ruling.

The CPA chief was responding to interviewers Faraz Saukatally and Bandula Jayasekera on TV 1 on Tuesday (Feb.23). Attorney-at-law Gomin Dayasri, who was also on the programme, strongly disputed Dr. Saravanamuttu’s assertion.

The then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga accommodated Wickremanayake and Rajapaksa via the National List following the April

2004 parliamentary election.

Dr. Saravanamuttu said that his organisation had moved the Court of Appeal against the National List appointments because they were concerned about the composition of the Supreme Court. Once the Court of Appeal declined to issue a ruling on the basis it didn’t have the jurisdiction on the matter, they had decided against pursuing the matter fearing an unfavourable verdict.

The CPA chief asserted that it was a tactical move.

Stressing that the decision to move Supreme Court against Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka’s appointment as a UNP National List MP not personal, Dr. Saravanamuttu said such a move would deprive voters of their rights.

The CPA, on Feb. 18, filed a fundamental rights application challenging the appointment of the war winning Army Chief to fill the vacancy created by the death of M. K. A. D. S. Gunawardana. The SC was moved in terms of Article 99A of the Constitution.

"The CPA’s position is that in terms of Article 99A of the Constitution, only a person whose name was included in the district nomination papers or the National List, submitted by the relevant political party, is entitled to be nominated to fill such a vacancy," Dr. Saravanamuttu said.

Among the respondents are UNP General Secretary, Kabir Hashim, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, Secretary General of Parliament Dhammika Dassanayake, Attorney General Jayantha Jayasuriya, and members of the National Election Commission, namely Mahinda Deshapriya, Dr. Nalin Abeysekera and Professor Ratnajeevan Hoole.

The CPA has requested the Supreme Court to prevent Fonseka receiving ministerial portfolio until final determination of the case.

Dr. Saravanamuttu dismissed as baseless the allegation that the CPA had refrained from proceeding with the earlier court action because he was offered an influential post.

Dayasri, however, stressed that the CPA should have moved the Supreme Court even if it feared receiving an unfavourable verdict. The veteran lawyer commended the CPA and its executive director Dr Saravanamuttu for challenging the latest National List appointment which, he said, was contrary to the Constitution as well as the Parliamentary Election Act. "Our law is clear as Fonseka is not a member of the UNP and in the absence of his name in UNP district or National List he cannot be accommodated," Dayasri said.

Dayasri faulted the Court of Appeal for failing to decide on CPA action. Still, the CPA should have taken the next logical step by testing the Supreme Court, Dayasri said.

Stating that Elections Commissioner Mahinda Deshapriya hand handled the presidential and parliamentary polls extremely well last year, Dayasri castigated the National Election Commission, particularly its head Mahinda Deshapriya for accepting Democratic Party Leader Fonseka’s appointment in contravention of the law. "I have lost respect for Deshapriya to some degree. He should have pointed out the irregularity."

The attorney-at-law questioned the failure on the part of Deshapriya to secure opinion of the Supreme Court. Dayasri called Deshapriya a political animal.

Underscoring the supremacy of the Constitution, the lawyer said that the Supreme Court was not above the Constitution and, therefore, Supreme Court judges weren’t above the law. The Supreme Court, too, was bound by the Constitution, Dayasri said.