The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has yesterday filed a Fundamental Rights application challenging the appointment of Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka to fill the vacancy created by the death of Mr. M. K. A. D. S. Gunawardana, as a Member of Parliament elected in terms of Article 99A of the Constitution (the National List).
Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
“CPA’s position is that in terms of Article 99A of the Constitution, only a person whose name was included in the district nomination papers or national list submitted by the relevant political party, is entitled to be nominated to fill such a vacancy.” the organisation said in a statement.
In its Petition, CPA stated that the appointment of a person as a Member of Parliament contrary to the provisions of the Constitution violates several rights guaranteed under the Constitution and in particular the franchise which is part of the sovereignty of the people. Furthermore, CPA argues that any attempt to interpret legislation in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Constitution would imperil the supremacy of the Constitution, which is the cornerstone of constitutional democracy.
Related posts;
CPA Quashes Its Own Objection To Fonseka Appointment
madhavi / February 18, 2016
Dont just pretend Pakyasothi. You guys will be happy as long as Mahinda Rajapaksha will be in trouble.
/
Sinhala_Man / February 19, 2016
Yes, it is politically expedient to have Sarath Fonseka in parliament, and he is respected far, far more than the number of votes HIS PARTY got at the August 2015 General Elections.
The Rajapaksas are consummate politicians who have done great harm to the country, and thus they realised that they had to contest those elections from the “SLFP” so as to garner all the “anti-UNP” votes. The JVP stood idealogically for something different from the two main parties, and their recent record has been good. But it will take a long time for the rural voter to forget the terror they unleashed 25 years ago. I remember 1971 as well, but that has now been forgotten. Poor, straight talking Fonseka didn’t realise that his party would figure only as a meaningless entity.
As for what CPA is saying: that is very valid. Even if, as you say, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu is happy to see MaRa in trouble, undermining the supremacy of the Constitution is dangerous in the long run.
All this is politics, but we are not politicians! It may be that Sarath Fonseka will end up being in Parliament for a few years while the CPA case is being heard, and then the Supreme Court forces him out on technical grounds – for SF to enjoy a respected retirement from all politics.
This is what I say, as a an onlooker of these political games: “The War is over, now we have to re-build our country!”
/
Shrikharan / February 18, 2016
Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
“CPA’s position is that in terms of Article 99A of the Constitution, only a person whose name was included in the district nomination papers or national list submitted by the relevant political party, is entitled to be nominated to fill such a vacancy.”
I totally agree with Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
It should be challenged in courts. I hope the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) who has the technical knowledge, manpower and resources should proceed with action. Issuing only statements is of no use and that simply reduces their organization to people like us passing comments in the Colombo Telegraph! Unlike people like us here, you are being funded, so you have to have the courage to challenge this appointment in courts. It is only then you have an organization with some teeth.
/
Dankottuwa Manike / February 19, 2016
Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
Can CPA take legal action against former Chief Justice Sarath De Silva?
Some of judgements during Mahinda times were very political. They need reconsideration legally.
/
nadaraja / February 18, 2016
Dr.Paikiasoty Saravanamuttu I am agree with you, your challenged is correct. I understand government is changing police for benefit them self. also I wander you are the only one person in this country challenged the appoint for Fonseka as a parliament member. you great go ahead ….
/
Mitra / February 18, 2016
Any average man in the street knows that the appointment of rejected candidates through the National List is a fraud.
Yet, in this country it is very unfortunate that we the people have no trustworthy justice system. Probably Fonseka’s appointment may have been made after obtaining clearance from Chief Justice Sripavan. He cannot say no to Priem Miniser Ranil who made him the Chief Justice. If not for him Sripavan would not have even a remote chance to become the Chief Justice.
This is a new case and there are many fundamental right cases over 5 years old still pending in the Supreme Court and probably the Chief Jutice Sripavan will not give any preferential treatment to this case and by the time Order is made in this case Fonseka would have completed the entire term as National List MP.
This is why people cry for independent and credible justice system with foreign judges to uphold the rule of law, to judge important cases
/
Plato. / February 18, 2016
It is true,Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka needs to be in Parliament to check-mate the Rajapakses.
At the same time,the appointment should also be on the lines of Article 99A.
It appears as though the Govt:itself is caught between Scylla and Charybdis!
/
Jayasingha / February 18, 2016
This will be a sham show by CPA like the weak case intentionally filed on the Central Bank issue to prevent further action.
/
Derby / February 19, 2016
Finally, the CPA has got something right to fight! Go ahead and throw your weight in. We don’t want a mass murderer in the Parliament.
/
Piranha / February 19, 2016
What about the other mass murderer Rajapaksa?
/
KA Sumanasekera / February 19, 2016
Pakiosothy has become a real defender of Yahpalanaya than Yahapalana PM Batalanda Ranil.
Batalanda Ranil called the Field Marshall a loser who wasn’t fit to be even Salvos’ Commander.
Now he is given poor Rosy Senanayaka’s spot to the FM, in spite of Rosy scoring ten times as many votes as the Field Marshall.
Is Batalanada Ranil so desperate to hang on to this PM job?.
When he has done Jack Shit for over 12 months now, except giving the the Singaporean our Central bank and allowing all the crooks to appoint their kith and kin to plum jobs in the Government.
Good on you Paikiosothy..Keep up the good work mate.
/
Nagananada / February 19, 2016
I have nothing against SF’s appointment as MP (considering the quality of the people appointed as MPs) through the UNP National List, yet according to law this appointment is absolutely wrong and irregular and it is far worse than other appointments made from the defeated candidates at the General Election by political parties.
Although their names were not in the National List filed under Article 99A, they had contested the Election from the respective political parties, who had appointed them through the National List.
Even if you concede the National List provision (Article 99A) is valid in law (which had been made law by fraudulent means, without obtaining a mandate from the people), it still requires name of nominee to be appointed through the National list in the Nomination list by the particular political party at the General Election 2015. Unfortunately SF’s name is not there in the Nomination list filed by the UNP.
/
Saman / February 19, 2016
This NGO man is behind something which Vasudewa follows.
These are crooks who betrayed our motherland.
This man must be brought to justice and incarcerated for life.
/
Ananda Markalanda / February 19, 2016
What is apparent is that court has already given consent and advice to PM before this was done, just like in many other cases pending or delayed in our judiciary. If this is heard MP’s time will expire and parliament dissolved.
The right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal must be applied at all times and is a right contained in preventing undue delay in the administration of justice has become an object of increasing interest and concern. Our constitution sec 126 has guaranteed this time limit, only in paper.
The question is whether it’s a living document?
/
CountryFirst / February 22, 2016
This is a little bit of diversionary legal action no doubt….perhaps to demonstrate to the country that the CPA is fair-minded and criticizes both sides on this issue…
But, it may also be meant to prevent others from proceeding with similar legal suits in their belief that the CPA suit will take care of it. Hopefully, these suits will proceed undeterred.
/
sekara / February 23, 2016
Whatever the intention, it is a welcome move. Let us make sure that it is pursued in sincerity.
That will be a test for CPA as well.
/