The decision given yesterday by the Court of Appeal judges who examined the petition challenging the holding of the position of Member of Parliament by Mrs. Diana Gamage has now become the subject of much discussion in society. I Sri Lanka Latest News
The opinions expressed by the honourable judges were published in this way today by some media.
Lankadeepa newspaper
The Court of Appeal ruled yesterday (31) to dismiss with costs the writ petition filed by social activist Mr. Oshala Herath requesting the issuance of a writ of mandate to invalidate State Minister Diana Gamage’s tenure as a Member of Parliament.
This order was announced according to the majority decision of the three-judge Appellate Court bench.
Announcing a separate decision against this decision, Court of Appeal Judge M.A.R. Marikkar said that a writ will be issued to invalidate the position of State Minister Diana Gamage as a Member of Parliament.
This decision was made by the President of the Court of Appeal, Judge Nishanka Bandula Karunaratne, Khema Swarnadhipa and M.A.R. Marikkar announced by an Appellate Court Bench.
State Minister Diana Gamage and the Immigration Controller were named as respondents in this writ petition filed by social activist Mr Oshala Herath.
The judgment announced by the President of the Court of Appeal, Mr Nishanka Bandula Karunaratne, with the concurrence of Mrs. Justice Khema Swarnadhipita states:
The main evidence that the petitioner has produced against the Minister of State is the criminal case against her in the Magistrate Court.
It is not sufficient to issue a writ of quo warranto writ.
According to the Court rules, sufficient evidence must be presented to prove beyond reasonable doubt the issuance of a writ. It is clear that the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the ulterior motive of damaging the good name of the Minister of State and bringing her into disrepute.
It is also clear from the facts presented that the petitioner has acted according to a personal agenda. The court is of the opinion that if a Writ Petition is filed for public welfare, it should be done with a common good purpose and not for personal gain.
Accordingly, the court is of the opinion that this petition has been submitted with malice without good faith. Accordingly, the relief requested in the petition is denied and the petition is dismissed. The judgment also states that the petitioner is ordered to pay the court fees to State Minister Diana Gamage.
Court of Appeal Judge M.A.R. The judgment announced by Mr. Marikkar states:
State Minister Diana Gamage should set an example as a Member of Parliament. Must be transparent and accountable.
What she has to do is not to challenge the petitioner but to prove the facts of her citizenship.
It also appears that the petitioner has filed a case against the Minister of State. Accordingly, the judgment states that the facts presented by the petitioner are sufficient and that a quo warranto writ will be issued invalidating the position of State Minister Diana Gamage as a Member of Parliament and she will be ordered to pay the petitioner’s court fees.
Advocate Mr. Hafeel Faris appeared for the petitioner.
President’s Counsel Mr Shavindra Fernando appeared on behalf of State Minister Diana Gamage.
Yesterday (Oct. 31) the Court of Appeal dismissed with costs the petition filed by State Minister Diana Gamage asking for an order to disqualify her as a Member of Parliament.
This petition was heard by the President of the Court of Appeal, Judge Nishanka Bandula Karunaratne, Khema Swarnadhiphi and A. Marikkar was examined before the three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal.
Announcing its decision, the majority judges of the three-judge bench, the President of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Justice Nishanka Bandula Karunaratne and Mr. Khema Swarnadhipati, ruled that the relevant petition is dismissed subject to fees.
The President of the Court of Appeal, who announced the decision of the majority of the three-member bench, said: “Sufficient evidence should have been submitted to the court to submit such a request and seek relief from the court. However, the petitioner has come to the court without sufficient evidence. The petitioner has submitted to the court as evidence only the criminal case against the respondent. Also, the petitioner has come to the court relying on several statements given to the police by the Deputy Controller of Immigration and Emigration. According to the Evidence Ordinance Act, the issue of whether this evidence can be admitted also arises in the court. Therefore, the evidence presented by the petitioner is not sufficient to confirm the request he is asking the court. According to the Supreme Court rules, the petitioner has come to the court without sufficient evidence to prove it.” Said.
The presiding judge of the Court of Appeal stated that the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent Diana Gamage have not been presented before the court which can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
“The petitioner says that he submitted this petition as a public welfare case. In presenting the case for public welfare, it should be presented without political theories hidden behind it. Unethical profit should not be expected from such cases. It should also be presented in good faith. The petitioner has submitted this with the aim of defaming the respondent MP Diana Gamage and maliciously tarnishing her good name in pursuit of his personal agenda. It is not a right to get relief from the court,” said Judge Nishanka Bandula Karunaratne, President of the Court of Appeal.
Accordingly, the majority judges of the three-judge appellate bench ruled that the petitioner’s petition is dismissed with costs as he has failed to present evidence before the court to grant the relief sought by him.
Member Judge A. who gave the minority decision in the three-member bench. Mr. Marikkar stated that the respondent, as a Member of Parliament, is obliged to be accountable to the public and act in a transparent manner.
Also, the respondent has failed to establish facts about her Sri Lankan citizenship and thus she is not qualified to hold the position of a Member of Parliament as per the Constitution.
According to the judgment issued by Judge Marikkar, a writ will be issued ruling that the respondent Mrs. Diana Gamage is not fit to hold the position of Member of Parliament and she must pay the court fees to the petitioner.
Oshala Herath, a social activist, submitted this petition requesting that since Diana Gamage is a holder of British citizenship, she is not qualified to be elected, sit and vote in Parliament under the Constitution of the country.
News excerpt from BBC Sinhala website.
