They (SIRASA) report ... YOU decide ... in the meantime, WE (those concerned members of the Bar) will do what we can, to preserve the oath of office we have taken .. TO UPHOLD & DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION ... col4neg.net/newspage/sirasa-news-10pm/sirasa-news-1st-10pm-05-11-2014.html His Excellency the President has referred two questions for determination by the Supreme Court, under Article 129 of the Constitution, which is to be responded on or before 10th November. The questions (excerpts only) are - (a) Whether in terms of Article 31 (3A)(a)(i) as amended by the 18th I have ... any impediment after expiration of four years, to declare an election to seek a further term; (b) Whether in terms of the Constitution (as amended by the 18th) there is I as President ... have any impediment .. to be elected for a further term The Registrar of the Court, as directed by His Lordship the Chief Justice has, by communication dated 05th November informed the Bar Association that if any member wishes to tender Written Submissions in this regard, we may do so until 3pm of 07th November. As it is our bounden duty as Attorneys of the Republic, obliged by an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution (and thus by implication the sovereign rights of the People of this Republic), I intend to meet this deadline and tender whatever that is practically possible within this very short space of time allowed. My response (which is being prepared now) will assume the following general format: 1. That these questions are too vague and ambiguous and are not capable of being answered by the Supreme Court, in the manner formulated; 2. It is not for the Supreme Court to speculate on undisclosed impediments, that His Excellency may entertain, which has moved His Excellency to seek such an opinion in the first place, that such reference must spell out in precise detail what His Excellency perceives (or is unsure of) those impediments are, which then Their Lordships of the Supreme Court will determine and opine on; 3. That furthermore the Supreme Court, as indeed His Excellency the President exercises the SOVEREIGN POWER of the PEOPLE (Article 3) which is INALIENABLE, separated in Article 4 and given temporarily IN PUBLIC TRUST by 4(b) to an Executive President and 4(c) the Judiciary, to be exercised for the good of their ULTIMATE BENEFICIARIES being the PEOPLE; 4. That therefore, particularly in these premises where even the perceived impediments are not precisely spelt out (which the People may very well come out with, IF granted the opportunity), and since Article 129 (1) refers to a hearing and 129(4) to proceedings when such a question is referred, this is a fit and proper matter of considerable national / public importance for a full hearing of the opinion of THE PEOPLE (whether they be represented by political parties, other civil / political groups or even individuals) rather than limiting it to us members of the Bar Association to tender Written Submissions within this very limited space of time. IF ANYONE is interested in what we will ultimately submit, Id be happy to email it to you after submission tomorrow. In the meantime I leave you with 3 paragraphs of our Written Submissions to the Supreme Court, in August 2010, where once again we had a very short time to tender submissions on the (then proposed) 18th Amendment - I Quote: ... (3) Furthermore the Petitioner remains confident and hopes that these submissions would be analyzed within the wider parameters of the Law and not as simply the submissions of one political party against any one government, president or regime; but more as against a hypothetical regime or government which may arise in the distant future. At such time the generations of Sri Lankans that follow us would not turn “a finger of blame” at us for not having done our duty. (4) It is also submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that due to the very limited time made available to study these proposals in detail or file these written submissions (the fact that even the proposed Bill in its final form was only made available to Counsel once Hon. Attorney General had begun his submissions), although we have attempted our best it has not been possible to procure all the necessary documents / authorities in this appreciably very short space of time. (5) As such it is respectfully urged on behalf of the Petitioner, keeping in mind the gravity and deep ramifications of these intended proposals to amend the Constitution of this Republic, not to permit this Bill to be rushed through in this “urgent form” but to allow Counsel further time to assist your Lordships in this matter morefully, adequately and as the interest of justice duly require from us in the due performance of our constitutional duty as officers of your Lordships Court... Unquote This legislation as you know, which came as an Urgent Bill was ultimately passed as the 18th Amendment to the Constitution ... the link (below) is to the judgment as reported in the parliamentary hansard, by a bench headed by (then) Dr. Shirani Bandaranaike, who went on to become the 43rd Chief Justice of the Republic.
Posted on: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 19:32:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015