Chief Justice Sripavan Withdraws From National List Abuse Hearing

April 8, 2016

Chief Justice K. Sripavan who is charged for Judicial Corruption before the Corruption Commission and also before the Supreme Court (SC/Writs/03/2016) by the right activist and lawyer Nagananda Kodituwakku has withdrawn himself from the hearing of the National List abuse case (SC/Writs/05/2015). It is learnt that this case now drifting in the Supreme Court, without been listed for support, for a considerable period amidst stiff resistance from the Chief Justice.

Chief Justice K. Sripavan

Public Interest Rights Activist Nagananda Kodituwakku challenged the appointment of defeated candidates at the last General Election as MPs through the National List disregarding the National List published by the Election Commissioner (for the information of the voters before the Election was held in August last year). Activist Nagananda challenge that these appointments are totally unlawful as the clause inserted to the Article 99A of the Constitution in May 1988 – permitting the party secretaries to appoint rejected candidates through the National List – had been interpolated by fraudulent means by the then President J R Jayewardene, disregarding the due process stipulated in Chapter 12 of the Constitution. Producing the Bill approved by the Select Committee appointed by the Parliament to modify the franchise and election the activist Nagananda demonstrates that the said Bill does contain no such clause permitting the Party Secretaries to appoint rejected candidates as MPs.

In the Petition filed in Court the activist submits that according to the due process as setout in the Constitution, to amend or repeal it is mandatory to publish such bills for the information of the people in the Gazette at least two weeks before place in the Order paper of the Parliament. The Petitioner argues that any amendment that affects people’s sovereign rights protected in the Constitution, including the franchise guaranteed by Article 3, cannot be made law without obtaining people’s approval at a referendum.

Activist Nagananda argues that there was no such referendum held before enacting the disputed clause inserted to Article 99A. He argues that under Article 82(6) of the Constitution the said disputed clause enacted by unlawful means does not becomes a part of the Constitution and the Court cannot interpret or construe the said clause as valid provision of law and hence all appointments made on the recommendations of the UPFA Chairman President Sirisena, relying on the said clause have no force in law.

When the activist and lawyer, Nagananda challenged these appointments before the Supreme Court, under Article 132, he has requested the Chief Justice to appoint seven judges to hear this case, considering the National Importance of the issues involved. However Chief Justice Sripavan has ruled that according to his opinion, issues involved in the case lacks any National Importance and refused to appoint a full bench to hear the case.

Read More