By Udara Soysa –

The recent legal challenge seeking a stay order on the upcoming Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) election was an ill-conceived and legally baseless attempt to obstruct the democratic process. The argument that a fresh nomination process must be initiated every time a candidate withdraws has no foundation in the BASL Constitution. If such a principle were accepted, elections could be indefinitely delayed through strategic withdrawals, rendering the electoral process meaningless.

More significantly, this challenge appears to have been a calculated move to block the candidacy of Rajeev Amarasuriya, a key contender in the election. The timing, nature, and legal reasoning of the petition suggest that the primary goal was not to ensure electoral fairness but rather to prevent a strong candidate from competing. The dismissal of the stay order by the District Judge on February 17, 2025, ensures that the election will proceed as scheduled on February 19, 2025, dealing a blow to those attempting to manipulate the legal system for political gain.

The plaintiffs’ Argument: An Endless Cycle of Elections?

The plaintiff advanced the claim that Mr. Maddegoda’s withdrawal from the election rendered the entire nomination process invalid, necessitating fresh nominations. However, this interpretation has no basis in the BASL Constitution and, if upheld, would create an absurd and dangerous precedent. If every withdrawal necessitated fresh nominations, elections could never be completed:

First Round: Candidates submit nominations. One withdraws. A fresh nomination process is initiated.

Second Round: Another candidate withdraws. Again, fresh nominations are required.

Third Round and Beyond: This cycle repeats indefinitely, preventing elections from ever taking place.

By this logic, any election could be deliberately sabotaged by orchestrating withdrawals at strategic moments, blocking a legitimate democratic process from unfolding. Such an outcome would be both illogical and detrimental to the credibility of the BASL.

BASL Constitution: No Requirement for Fresh Nominations Upon Withdrawal

A careful reading of the BASL Constitution reveals that there is no provision stating that a candidate’s withdrawal voids the nomination process. According to Schedule B – Nomination and Election Procedure Rules for President and Secretary, candidates are required to submit valid nomination papers signed by proposers and seconders​. Once the nominations are accepted and the objections period closes, the election proceeds as planned.

Nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that if a candidate withdraws, the entire process must be restarted. The absence of such a provision is not an oversight but a deliberate measure to prevent elections from being endlessly stalled by frivolous withdrawals.

The only circumstances under which an election could be invalidated are:

* If the election process itself is procedurally flawed.

* If a candidate violates nomination rules and is disqualified.

* If the election is challenged under proper BASL election dispute mechanisms.

* None of these conditions were met in this case, which is why the District Judge swiftly refused to order to prevent the election on 19th..

The Real Target: Blocking Rajeev Amarasuriya’s Candidacy

Beyond the weak legal basis of the petition, the timing and implications of the challenge indicate a politically motivated attempt to prevent Rajeev Amarasuriya from contesting the election. Amarasuriya, a former BASL Secretary and a respected figure in Sri Lanka’s legal community, has been a frontrunner in the election.

Why Was Amarasuriya Targeted?

Rajeev Amarasuriya has gained widespread support within the legal fraternity due to his track record of integrity, legal expertise, and leadership within BASL. His victory would reshape the direction of BASL, possibly in ways that some factions within the legal community oppose.

The legal challenge came just days before the election, a transparent attempt to derail the process at the last minute. If successful, the move would have created uncertainty, delaying the election beyond February 19, 2025, giving opponents more time to consolidate power.

By forcing a new nomination process, Amarasuriya’s candidacy could have been obstructed due to procedural delays, making it difficult for him to formally contest within a new timeline.

However, this plan failed as the court dismissed the stay order request, ensuring that the election will proceed on schedule.

Judicial Dismissal: A Victory for Democracy

The District Judge’s rejection of the case to halt the election was a strong statement against the misuse of legal arguments to obstruct democratic processes. In doing so, the judiciary upheld several key principles:

* Elections must proceed as planned unless there is a clear constitutional violation.

* Judicial intervention should not be used as a tool for political manipulation.

* A candidate’s withdrawal does not—and should not—invalidate an entire election.

* This ruling ensures that the BASL election will proceed fairly, without being hijacked by last-minute legal maneuvers aimed at blocking specific candidates.

Long-Term Implications: Protecting BASL’s Democratic Process

While this attempt to obstruct the election has failed, it raises important concerns about the future of BASL elections. If such tactics continue, the legal profession itself risks losing credibility. To prevent similar disruptions in the future, BASL must consider:

* Amending the Constitution to Clarify the Nomination and Withdrawal Process

* An explicit rule stating that candidate withdrawals do not affect the election timeline would prevent future legal challenges based on weak interpretations.

* Strengthening Internal Election Dispute Mechanisms

* Disputes over nomination processes should be resolved within BASL’s internal mechanisms, rather than through courts, unless there is a serious legal violation.

* Identifying and Exposing Strategic Election Disruptions

* BASL must remain vigilant against politically motivated efforts to disrupt elections, ensuring that the association remains independent and democratic.

A Defeat for Legal Manipulation, A Win for Fair Elections

The failed legal challenge against the BASL election was a misguided and cynical attempt to prevent Rajeev Amarasuriya from contesting. By arguing for an endless cycle of nominations, the petitioners sought to paralyze the election process and manipulate the legal system to their advantage.

The court’s decision to refuse the stay order upholds the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law. Elections must be allowed to take place without strategic legal obstructions. The legal profession, which is supposed to defend justice, must not allow such misuse of the judicial process to interfere with its own governance.

With the election now set for February 19, 2025, the legal community must turn its focus to ensuring a fair, transparent, and democratic election process. Let this case serve as a lesson against using the courts as a tool for political maneuvering—and as a reminder that the rule of law must always prevail over political expediency.