Writ Application Requesting To Suspend Presidential Polls Is Missing !
December 22, 2014
Colombo Telegraph can reveal that the Petitioner of the Writ Application filed in the Court of Appeal in Sri Lanka requesting the Court of Appeal to issue a writ to the Elections Commissioner to suspend the Presidential polls, was barred from supporting the writ application before the Court vacation was commenced from today, citing that the Petition filed in Court ‘missing’ in the case record.
De facto CJ Mohan Pieris
This is a act of very serious nature and the Petitioner Nagananda Kodituwakku, Attorney at Law (SL) and Solicitor (UK) strongly believes and reported to the Court that missing of the Original Petition is an act presumably committed by ‘interested person/persons working in collusion with some individuals in the Court system to prevent the supporting of this Petition in Court and thereby exposing the gross abuses of office by the 3rd Respondent, Mohan Pieris, who occupied the office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under ‘Oath’ knowing fully well that taking of the said Oath of Office (undertaking to be faithful to the Constitution and Law) before the Executive President at a time when there was no vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice, would tantamount to violation of law, which reduces the statement under oath by Mohan Pieris as Chief Justice to being a FALSE OATH amounting to an act of PERJURY which makes any Judicial act performed by Mohan Pieris, occupying the office of Chief Justice has no legal effect, including the acceptance, denial of public hearing, and expression of an opinion on the 2 questions affecting the private interests of the Executive President but referred to the Supreme Court abusing the powers vested in the President, which Mohan Pieris decided as two questions ‘affecting national interest’ and ruled that the opinion expressed by him on the two questions will have the same weight of a judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court effectively baring the rights of the citizens challenging the legitimacy of the 2 questions referred to Court.
Related posts;
