There was a significant discussion in Sri Lankan politics when a petition was presented to the Supreme Court just before a presidential election was to be announced.
This issue garnered strong attention in both the political sphere and society as a whole. The society was eagerly anticipating the presidential election, and opposition political parties in Sri Lanka were also preparing for the upcoming election.
Against this backdrop, a petition was submitted to the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of the end date of the current President’s term of office.
The petitioning parties also requested an order to halt the planned presidential election. However, the discussion came to an end when the Supreme Court ruled on the 8th to dismiss the petition without a hearing and imposed a legal fee of 100,000 rupees.
Requesting an interpretation of the President’s tenure
The petition was heard before a five-member Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, with Vijith Malalgoda, Murdu Fernando, Prithi Padman Surasena, and S. Thureiraja.
When the consideration of the petition started, Deputy Solicitor General Kanishka de Silva, representing the Attorney General, stated before the court that according to the current constitution, it’s clear that the term of office of the President is 5 years.
He also pointed out that, according to Article 125 of the Constitution, only the lower courts can ask the Supreme Court to give an interpretation when a problem arises in the Constitution.
Many interlocutory petitions
There were multiple petitions filed against this particular petition. The General Secretary of the opposition party, Samagi Jana Balawega, Ranjith Maddumabandara, submitted a similar petition.
The President’s lawyer, Romesh de Silva, representing him, argued in court that there is no constitutional provision for the petitioner to request such an interpretation.
President’s Advocate K.Kanageeshvaran representing the Sri Lanka Bar Association, Kanageeswaran, also argued that the petition was against the law.
He urged the bench to dismiss the petition, stating that the Supreme Court had no basis to consider it.
During court proceedings, President’s lawyer Nigel Hatch, representing National People’s Power Member of Parliament Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, highlighted the fact that the petitioner himself had previously submitted a writ petition during the 2019 presidential election. He emphasized that this previous petition had been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Lawyer M.A. Sumanthiran, representing another group of petitioners, emphasized the significance of the 19th amendment to the Constitution. He elaborated on how this amendment altered Article 30(2), specifically reducing the President’s term from 6 to 5 years. Furthermore, he noted that the amendment was ratified by Parliament following three days of extensive debate.
Mohan Weerakoon, the legal representative of Eranga Gunasekara from the Socialist Youth Association, stood before the court and laid out the details of another interlocutory petition. He argued that the petition lacked a solid basis and should be dismissed without a hearing.
President’s Attorney Sally Peiris, representing the Paffarel organisation, presented a compelling case before the court, advocating for the dismissal of the petition with consideration for fees.
Furthermore, President’s Attorney Shamil Perera, representing the Archbishop of Colombo, Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, emphasised to the court the vital responsibility of safeguarding the fundamental rights of the people.
In addition, several other parties submitted interim petitions seeking the dismissal of the original petition.
The petitioner is present in person
Following the aforementioned events, petitioner C. D. Lenawa personally appeared before the court to eloquently state the facts of the case.
This was an extraordinary moment, as he proceeded to argue before the court that the 19th amendment of the Constitution infringed upon the sovereignty of the people.
He referenced Article 30(2) of the Constitution, which stipulates a 6-year term for the President. Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya raised a pertinent question about the potential violation of fundamental rights resulting from the conduct of the presidential election.
In response, the petitioner articulated, “Your Honour, the 6-year term of office for the president is a foundational legal principle. It is on this basis that we have filed a lawsuit against this illegitimate presidential election.”
Questions after questions from the bench
During the presentation of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, Justice Vijith Malalgoda raised a question which prompted you to submit a petition challenging it.
When asked about this, you confirmed that the petitioner who responded did not accept it. Additionally, Judge Malalgoda enquired why the petitioner had not raised concerns about the tenure of the President at that time, if it was an issue.
Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya asked the petitioner if he had read the 19th Amendment to the Constitution and clarified that after its passage, the President’s term of office is five years.
Judge Vijith Malalgoda questioned the petitioner about whether he was requesting a review of an already passed law.
The petitioner replied affirmatively, stating that the Court has the authority to reconsider even laws passed by the Court, citing Articles 82 to 86 of the Constitution.
The petitioner also argued that the previous process was a mistake on the part of the court.
At that time, Judge Vijith Malalgoda strongly warned the petitioner and emphasised that he should present the facts according to the law and not misuse the opportunity given by the court.
Following that, the Chief Justice addressed the petitioner and asked if he accepts that the term of office of the President is five years according to the 19th amendment of the Constitution. The petitioner also confirmed that he accepts it.
Final verdict
The Chief Justice reiterated that, in line with the 19th amendment of the Constitution, the President’s term of office spans five years. Following this, the Chief Justice declared that the petitioner’s submission lacked a reasonable basis for consideration.
Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to remit a court fee of one hundred thousand rupees within a month due to the unnecessary consumption of court time.
