31 May, 2023


Lawyers Slam President’s Illegal Dissolution At SC

In a shock move, a member of Sri Lanka’s independent Elections Commission filed a fundamental rights petition in Supreme Court yesterday, joining a dozen other petitioners in challenging the Presidential Proclamation dissolving Parliament and declaring elections as unconstitutional and illegal.

Prof. S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole

Prof. S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole, a member of the three-man Commission set up by the 19th Amendment to the constitution told a three judge bench of the Supreme Court that he believed that the dissolution of Parliament by Friday’s proclamation was “ex facie” illegal – or bad in law on the face of it, and saying he was duty bound to ensure the constitution was honoured.

As the constitutional crisis triggered by President Maithripala’s shock sacking of his prime minister on October 26 entered its third week, Sri Lanka’s highest court became the epicentre of a pitched battle between the executive and legislative branches of the state yesterday as a spate of petitioners moved the courts against Friday’s midnight gazette dissolving Parliament.

A three judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Nalin Perera, and comprising Justices Prasanna Jayawardane and Priyantha Jayawardane, heard out lawyers representing 11 out of at least 12 petitioners in a marathon sitting till almost 6PM. The sittings were held in Court Room 502 of the Supreme Court Complex, which was packed to the brim with lawyers, litigants, journalists and a host of politicians hailing from political party represented in the sacked Parliament.

The Elections Commission was cited as a respondent in several petitions filed in court yesterday, but EC Member Prof. Hoole filed his own case – SC FR 361/2018 – to clarify the legal position on the sacking of Parliament by the President. His Counsel told Court that while Prof. Hoole was “deeply conscious” of the need to maintain a degree of neutrality as a member of the Election Commission, but cited Justice Mark Fernando’s 1999 Supreme Court ruling in the Karunatillake Vs. Dayananda Dissanayake case, filed against the indefinite postponement of elections for five provincial councils in August 1998. At the time, the President had used the promulgation of emergency regulations to postpone the elections indefinitely. In that case, the Supreme Court seemed to fault the Elections Commissioner Dissanayake for failing to obtain a judicial order in order to implement election laws.

Counsel for Prof. Hoole, Attorney at Law Hijaz Hisbullah said the last page of Justice Fernando’s judgment had noted that while the Court appreciated the difficult position Elections Commissioner Dissanayake was in, it had noted: “ it is necessary to remember that the constitution assures him independence, so that he may fearlessly insist on due compliance with the law in regard to all aspects of elections – even if necessary by instituting appropriate legal proceedings in order to obtain judicial orders. But the material available to this court indicates he made no effort to ascertain the legal position, or to have recourse to legal remedies.”

“My submission is that the proclamation that dissolves Parliament is ex facie illegal, because there is only one article in the entire constitution that allows for dissolution of Parliament by proclamation, and that is Article 70 (1),” the EC member’s Counsel argued. The President had avoided complying with that article when he dissolved Parliament, Hisbullah said.

Lawyer for the EC member said they were arguing “elementary matters of constitutional law”. “If Article 33 (2) can stand alone, when the President is being impeached, for violating the constitution or because he is mentally unfit – that he may still proceed to dissolve Parliament under 33 (2)?” Hisbullah asked.

Attorney Hisbullah noted that honouring the election result was also as important as holding elections and allowing people to exercise their franchise. “At an election all people gather to express an opinion. If we allow the President to dissolve parliament at any time, it says that the opinion of the President trumps all other opinions. There is one word for that, my lords – ‘dictatorship’.

The counsel for the EC Member also noted the urgency of granting interim relief to stay the election, saying the poll would be held at a great cost to the state. “The machinery has already started moving, and preliminary work to hold elections has begun,” he warned, saying the poll should be stayed until the court concluded determining the matter.

Attorney Hisbullah held with lawyers for other petitioners, that the President had embarked on a journey by making the proclamation, but he cannot do so without complying with Article 70 (1), which sets limits on his powers listed in Article 33 (2), by insisting on a resolution passed by two thirds of the House if dissolution is to take place by presidential proclamation before the stipulated 4.5 years of the Parliament’s term is complete.

The proclamation by the President refers to Article 33 (2) of the Constitution which gives him general powers to ‘summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament’, but does not refer to the special provisions set out in the constitution – 70 (1), that sets limits on his powers to do so.

Many lawyers arguing for petitioners challenging the presidential proclamation explained that general provisions – like article 33 which sets out the president’s powers, are superceded by the special provisions in Article 70, which sets out the framework within which his powers to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament can be exercised.

Jayantha Jayasuriya -Attorney General

Attorney General Jayantha Jayasuriya, who was cited in the petitions as representing the President, whose actions were being challenged in all the cases filed yesterday appealed for more time – at least until Wednesday – to make submissions. Chief Justice Perera initially adjourned the sittings from 12PM to 2PM to give the AG time to study the petitions, but AG Jayasuriya returned at 2PM saying he would require more time to “receive instructions” before arguing the case. Shortly before Court was adjourned, the AG asked for time till Wednesday.

The three judge bench denied the AG’s request for more time, even as counsel after counsel for the petitioners underscored the urgency of the question before the country’s apex court, and prayed for immediate interim relief. The Attorney General has been directed to present arguments at 10AM today, when sittings resume.

President’s Counsel K. Kanag-Iswaranappearing for Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan charged that Parliament could not be dissolved at the “whim and fancy” of the President. Article 62 (2) which sets out the Parliament’s term of office as five years, “unless otherwise dissolved” cannot mean that the legislature can be dissolved at the whim of the President.

“Article 70 (1) places limits on the power of the President to dissolve Parliament. It is a maxim in legal interpretation that special provisions will override general provisions. This is a simple thing. That is why my petition is only two pages. Everyone is on pins. The world is looking at us. Everyone has condemned this move. That is not my argument. But that is the reality,” the senior lawyer argued.

Kanag-Iswaran PC said it was only fair that the Gazette should be suspended. “The status quo will then resume. Parliament will reconvene day after tomorrow. And let Parliamentarians decide on their future. That is not a matter for the court to decide” he said.

He added that Article 33 is not a stand alone section but a section on general empowerments of the President– there are other articles in the constitution that legitimately influence its meaning and ambit.

“Five years is the norm. Anything less is an exception. Exception is prohibited in the constitution unless certain conditions are fulfilled, as stipulated in 70 (1) – two thirds majority resolution calling for dissolution or the completion of 4.5 years of Parliament’s term. “This gazette is illegal. It’s written in water. It has no force in law”.

“It is extraordinary that Article 70 (1) that deal that is staring us in the face, which provides the exceptions to 62 (2) finds no mention in the Gazette by the president. “This is the elephant that is missing in the room. Why has everyone ignored this? This is a convenient lapse of memory” Kanag- Iswaran PC added.

Appearing for Petitioner Champika Perera, President’s Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran sought to debunk what he said was a canard doing the rounds that the 19th Amendment bill that was gazetted did not contain the provisions limiting the President’s powers of dissolving Parliament. Sumanthiran PC said the Gazetted bill had it, and the Supreme Court which issued a determination on the bill did not even deem it necessary to pronounce on it.

Making a fiery submission, Counsel Sumanthiran said the term executive presidency was a misnomer after the enactment of the 19th Amendment.

M.A. Sumanthiran PC

“Executive power has been taken away from him. He is half the man that he was. He himself referred to the curtailment of his powers during the debate on the 19th Amendment in Parliament. When you look at Article 33, the powers listed are the powers of a ceremonial president, identical to the powers of the ceremonial head of state in the 1972 constitution,” he said.

Sumanthiran PC told Court that in President Sirisena’s proclamation dissolving Parliament the President had deliberately left out reference to 70 (1). “This cannot be oversight. In this whole merry go round, he does not touch on the very source of his power which is Article 70(1).”

“The order of dissolution is bad in law – incurably bad. And if the dissolution is bad, it is void and if that is nothing, nothing else can rest on it. So the contemplated General Election is unlawful. We don’t want an unlawful election,” Sumanthiran argued.

He added that if 70(1) has been ignored in the way it has been done, the very next day after a new Parliament sits – according to this gazette on January 17 – so on January 18, Parliament can be dissolved. “What if the President doesn’t like the face of the next Prime Minister or something else? Can that be permitted?”

Sumanthiran PC noted that Article 33 also gives him the power to prorogue Parliament. “I’m sure some people present in this court room wish the constitution stops with Article 33. But just because Article 33 (2) gives him the power to prorogue, can he prorogue forever? The limits on prorogation is listed elsewhere –that it shall be for a period of no more than 2 months – is in Article 70.”

Throwing his copy of the constitution down on the table with a bang, Sumanthiran PC said: “It’s unfortunate that we even have to argue this in court.”

Sumanthiran also argued that previous Supreme Court judgments have shown that each branch of Government is supreme in its own sphere. One cannot extinguish the power of the other. The three organs must act to give expression to the sovereignty of the people, they are interconnected but have checks and balances.

“The President cannot tomorrow extinguish this court. He cannot, but when people on the road ask us, we cannot say he cannot because he has already done this to the legislature,” he charged.

Two attempts by the Attorney General to delay proceedings by at least one day were denied by the Chief Justice.

Summary of submissions and hearing which took place today in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka with regard to the alleged dissolving of the Parliament.

Presidents Counsel K. Kanag-Isvaran commences his submissions in SCFR 351/18 for Leader of Opp @R_Sampanthan. States that a proclamation cannot be made under Art. 70(5). It is only a consequential provision. Has to be under 70(1) which President has not done. He further explains that Article 33(2)(c) is only an empowerment and not a stand alone provision. There are other provisions in the Constitution that legitimately influence its meaning and ambit and they need to be followed.

Counsel Hejaz Hizbullah for 4th Respondent in same case (Prof. S.R.H Hoole – member of election commission) says that it is his duty as a member of the EC to uphold the law. Legal precedent requires him to seek legal recourse. Says the proclamation is ex facie bad in law.

Former AG Tilak Marapana commences submissions in SCFR 352/18. Says that EVEN IF 33(2) was a stand alone provision, the act of dissolution has to be done reasonably and NOT for a collateral purpose as @MaithripalaS has done since the 26th October.

Counsel @ViranCorea commences submissions in SCFR 353/18 for Centre of Policy Alternatives and @PSaravanamuttu. Says that the Right to Franchise of Voters of Sri Lanka are affected by this act, and asks for a stay order against the proclamation.

Dr. Jayampathy Wickremaratne PC in SCFR 354/18 explains the rules of Constitutional Interpretation. Must look at the intention of the framers of the law, and interpret the law harmoniously. Should not interpret 33(2)(c) in a way that conflicts with 70(1).

Counsel @MASumanthiran in SCFR 355/18 explains the separation of power; under our Constitution each organ of government is supreme in its own sphere. There are checks and balances between them, but one cannot extinguish the other in this manner. He says that the act of Dissolution is void ab initio. Therefore anything that arises out of it, such as the General Election in the Proclamation are illegal.

Mr Sumanthiran PC also points out that if 33(2)(c) was a stand alone provision the President could prorogue parliament indefinitely without abiding by the limitations in Article 70. He explains how reading 33(2)(c) this way could lead to major abuse of power.

After short adjournment court takes up SCFR 356/18. Mr. JC Weliamuna PC states that 19th Amendment increased the powers of Parliament, which has a direct mandate of the people. Reminds us that Lawyers take an oath to defend the Constitution at a time when sun is setting on it. Mr Weliamua also says that the position isn’t that Parliament cannot be dissolved before its term. It can, but the procedure needs to be followed, i.e. reconvening Parliament and getting the approval of 2/3 of members.

Presidents Counsel G. Alagaratnam in SCFR 358/18 says an Article of the Constitution cannot be read in isolation or in a manner that creates an absurdity. This would be the case if the President can dissolve Parliament the day after it is elected. He also points out the impact that this act of the President has had on the economy and the country as a whole.

Mr. Suren Fernando in SCFR 359/18 explains that Article 70(7) re calling a dissolved Parliament in an emergency only applies if there is a valid dissolution. Without such dissolution, Parliament can reconvene.

Presidents Counsel Ikram Mohamed appearing for @Rauff_Hakeem and others in SCFR 360/18 reminds court of Article 33(1)(a) which says the President is duty bound to ensure that the Constitution is respected and upheld.

Much awaited Petition (SCFR 361/18) of Memeber of Elections Commission Prof. Hoole taken up.

Counsel Hejaaz Hizbullah asks how Article 70(5) mentioned in Proclamation can stand alone in disregard of 70(1). He also says that the right to Franchise isn’t only about holding elections but also respecting the choices of the people made in elections. He asks for a stay order pending the final determination of this case because of the large cost of Elections.

Credits @PublicLaw_LKA . Follow them on twitter for further updates.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 65

    Sirisena and Rajapaksa(s) will not understand these arguments and they are living in cloud cuckoo land.

    • 38

      Is there any short cut in lanken legal system president to be sacked from the presidency and put him in jail?

      He has reacted like ” Alice in wonderland” not not once

      • 22

        we thought we would achieve that much through GOOD GOVERNANCE.

        What went wrong ?

        We are ended up – being robbed out.

        President who led GOOD GOVERANCE made a U-turn and joined hand with his/country’s enemies.

        President is more or less like – covering his by using his SARONG not knowing that he is no naked.

    • 8

      Supreme Court stays the Disssolution proclamation by Sirisena until Drc 7th, until all arguments can be heard. The parliament can convene and approve/disapprove Mahinda or Ranil. Is this A Teledrama or what happens when a madman becomes the president?

    • 1

      While living in the cloud they are further confounded by their lack of education, civility, decency overtaken by sheer greed of all sorts where the principle is “me, me, me and my”.

  • 34

    @Edwin Rodrigo
    But let us face facts, with the current
    dictatorship enforced already by taking over all the state institutions, especially the media, The police and press under dictatorship and having appointed a new Chief Justice loyal to The Executive what guarantee is there the CJ will not act bias using the current dictatorship in force,?
    Do the people understand what the Present government is saying at all? They have rejected all Parliment procedures openly and Vasudeva have told the people openly he does not care about Parliment or Speaker, they will do what they want.
    We are already in a dual dictorship,
    Once The police is taken under MOD it is clear declaration of distatorship.
    If they have any election you won’t stand a chance to win fairly, the media and police and now the most reputed Elections Commissioner is also under the Executive.

    Don’t you think we need to prepare our selves to brace this unfortunate circumstance for the rest of our lives???
    If The SUPREME COURT Ignores the true sprit of the Parliament and decision to over rules unfairly it means it is giving giving a green light for permmenant dictatorship.
    So next general elections even if people vote rigging is to be expected at a very high level because zero transparency and especially because media, police and of Couse the State printing is also taken over, possible you can print at your will.
    So next is move is to executive PM and The President I think can not handle stress will. Handover everything on a platter to the life time executive PM and just remain a ceremonial President as long as he is safe and he and his family can enjoy some official perks. Our Country’s future’ fate will be determined by CJ and SC and will also tell us the true character of The SC and the CJ.

    • 0

      Oh, confused citizen where did all the love go, it was rainbows and butterflies just three and half years ago

  • 27

    As a humanitarian gesture will someone please distribute anti-diarrhea tablets free of cost to MS, MR and all their party men and supporters?

    • 0

      Aren’t we all missing the two cents’orth of that fake ambassador Dayan Silva in this discussion?

      He providedid such good service and entertainment as a punching bag!

  • 21

    suppose the sc rules dissolution is unconstitutional
    parliament will reconvene with the new govt in power
    the unp will then have move a no confidence motion
    the new govt members could disrupt sittings even coming to blows and a freeforall could ensue
    will the the prez then prorouge parliament again?

  • 10

    According to rumors, Ade derana 24 announced that the SC rejected the petitions and declared The President’s decision is legal

    Am Not sure, is there anyway CT can confirm this please.

    • 13

      I understand that the attorney general has asked to reject all petitions saying President did everything constitutionally. It was not surprise. I will not be surprised even the same is true because the chief justice was a recent appointee by Sirisena and the two others are picked up not based on seniority. In Srilanka, you can buy judiciary.

  • 17

    President is duty bound to ensure that the Constitution is respected and upheld.

    Never go for a shortcut to success, All the islands and the youngster knows that it was illegal
    population are real and founded on constitutional doctrine. This is the reason meeting of diplomats called by called by the foreign minster was boycotted by several Western diplomats while others sent low-level representatives

    • 4

      What is legal and illegal , 3/4th parliament votes went against ex-chief Justice Shiromi Bandaranayake but Ranil Government turn down that and not only even Sarath Fonseka also, after winning 2015 Presidential Election 41 MP’s party nominated for their PM , 16 MP’s TNA leader appointed as a Opposition Leader. Without any notice Mr. D.M. Jayarathne ex Prime Minister sacked and Ex-Chief Justice Peris also sacked

  • 7

    Can someone do thesis on how the current lots of POLITICIANS have been able to make the voting public so DUMB[STUPID] not to notice how they had been taking commissions/bribes; commit murders and torture; make all the professions corrupt and disloyal to Mother Lanka; divide and rule different ethnic and religious groups; keep the mega swindlers FREE and for them to enjoy their spoils; Passing LAW exams in a crooked way.
    I do hope with lots of internet savvy SL citizens, these corrupt politicians TIME IS UP.

  • 8

    Suppose the SC rules dissolution is unconstitutional????
    I doubt, There is already rumors a certain pro MR Media has announced that the CJ has strictly instructed the SC to reject all the petitions and recognize all actions by president including appointing Mr and his government.
    Seems like the birth of South Asian Hitler and Muasellini
    Actually the problem between President and RW began with the appointed of this CJ, whom the most politicians felt will be biased towards the president.
    These are rumors, I been waiting for confirmation on other channels

    • 8

      Rumours can always be there so long Derana TV and Hir TV are existing.

      No matter they are truths, or far near truths, they just spread in favour of Rajathuma AND 40 thieves.

  • 6

    Ranil should invite foreign diplomats to Parliament, stay there and cause trouble outside. Then the foreign governments will bomb the hell out of Colombo and Sri Lanka, saving Ranil and the diplomats. Then he can rule the nation for ever and who ever survives the bombs can keep him in power and Colombo (what is left) will live happily ever after!!!!

  • 2

    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2

  • 2

    I would like to look at the present episode in a different angle. I learn that the Tamil parties or individuals did not participate in the making of the constitution whether Constitution of Ceylon 1947/48 or the constitution of 1972 where Ceylon was named as Srilanak and the 1978 constitution. Both the 1972 and 1978 constitution were drafted and passed by the Sinhala parties SLFP and UNP but not excluding the Communist/Samsamgist parties. The Tamil parties were kept at bay as their opinion was not heeded and forced to keep away. In other words the Tamils were not a party to the drafting of the constitutions. However the Tamil MP’s and the other Tamils are compelled to take oaths to the constitution, to live in Srilanka. To-days situation reminds me of the Sinhala kings fighting among themselves to rule. In that process they did not hesitate to kill their siblings and even their fathers. Of course there were Tamil soldiers in each kingdom helping the fight against each other. Similarly two Sinhala parties are fighting to rule and the Tamils like Hoole, Sumanthiran Kanagaeaswaran, Sampanthan and a couple of other Tamils are aiding and abetting the’ war’ to score a personal points. The Tamils will have no benefit except to play SECOND FIDDLE and THIRD FIDDLE perhaps, continuously.

  • 3

    Strange! Shenali Waduge’s diatribe (of 13/11) has disappeared from the LankaWeb site.

    However, a response to it (with Rajan Hoole in the title) by C Wijeywickrema, citing Waduge’s “disappeared” article is still on the site!

    • 0

      On checking LankaWeb again later both Waduge’s & C Wijeywickrema’s article had disappeared.

      But now, at 16.30 a revised version of Waduge’s has been pasted & S. R. H. Hoole’s name been substituted for Rajan’s in the title.

      Wijeywickrema has been flung into outer darkness.

  • 3

    The bench comprises of three SINHSLESE. Will not be surprised by their ruling. This is like Buddhism’s triple gem or appaya’s XXXXS.

    • 1

      This country was ‘Sinhale’ until colonial bastards changed it. In a country where 75% are Sinhala, what is wrong with having three Sinhalayo at the bench?

  • 6

    Shenall waduge is notorious for plagiarizing,.

  • 2

    The Office of the Presidency, the Parliament and the Judiciary are fully independent entities existing side by side in total harmony. There is a clear demarcation line which separates all of the three. It is of fundamental importance that none of them breach that demarcation line. The President has breached that line by interfering in the independent functioning of the Parliament. If he had dissolved the Parliament on 26th October 2018 it would have been fine and dandy. What is so debasing is that when he failed to fish out enough MPs to make up the numbers, he abused his so called Presidential Powers by dissolving the Parliament. This arrogant conduct of the President is unlawful, disgraceful and must be condemned all round.

  • 5

    confused citizen
    the ag has asked sc to dismiss petitions
    the sc has not given a ruling yet

  • 4

    This decision of the Supreme Court is crucial as it is the only strong pillar left in protecting people’s voting rights, people’s mandate, no matter it is in whose favour and people’s right to choose a government of their choice.
    Otherwise, if the general election is held in January 2019 and if the President’s side couldn’t obtain majority votes, the following day, he will DISSOLVE the Parliament AGAIN!!!!
    Then again, after 5 years when the next election is held, the next President will also DISSOLVE the Parliament the following day, if his party couldn’t win the election.
    This is absurd.
    The Supreme Court should give a clear judgement so that this madness WILL NEVER REPEAT!!!
    This decision will have a direct impact ON VOTERS!
    Therefore, SC’s judgement will stand as a LANDMARK DECISION that will either PROTECT or UNDERMINE people’s right to vote, right to choose and above all people’s mandate.

    • 4

      I remember in 2017, the Kenyan Supreme Court gave a landmark decision by upholding Opposition’s petition that their President’s re-election was fraudulent.
      The Kenyan Chief Justice declared that the election result was null and void as the Presidential Election was not conducted in accordance with the Constitution!!!!!
      Look at that.
      The entire African region considered that it was a historical decision.
      Kenya’s literacy rate is 78.73%. Our is 92%.
      Except a handful of politicians and their supporters, almost every citizen in Sri Lanka considers President’s decision to dissolve the Parliament “2 YEARS EARLY”, is wrong and unconstitutional.
      The majority in the Sri Lankan Parliament was not known prior to its dissolution.
      The Speaker is under direct attack by the Executive.
      The entire world is watching us today.
      All eyes are on Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice.and the Supreme Court!
      I wish them strength, wisdom and courage!!!!

      • 0

        Champa, slowly changing your tune aren’t you?
        Right now the bus is full. You can take the next one.

  • 2

    Quote :
    AG request SC to reject all petitions

    AG issues statement President dissolving Parliament is not unconstitutional.

    • 1

      AG is the only one who said President’s term is for 6 years while the entire country says the President’s term is for 5 years!

  • 2

    Fiat justitia ruat caelum:—-Let justice be done though the heavens fall!
    Fortunately this is not the SILVA COURT[ Sarath.N.Silva onetime CJ]; So, there is a Silver Lining.

  • 3

    If there is an election MR, M3 combination will win due to corruption, thuggery and fake votes

    • 0

      mark my word, no body will get a vote that will be a salve their concious.People hate them for, having done this when our economy was in difficulties.

  • 1

    We should condemn the disgusting behavior of white supremacist Diplomats who blatantly violate diplomatic protocols by interfering in domestic affairs of a sovereign country because President removed their pet PM who was ruining this country.

  • 1

    Being a Sri Lankan, this is first time I’m overwhelmingly proud to see how our lawyers from all communities representing each others to establish justice and rule of all. Regardless of the outcome this is the way it should be. Bravo layers ! and May God bless our country!!.

  • 1

    Case is yet to be won. But their strategy is invalidated. Back bone is broken. Before December 7 NCM must be fished in the parliament against New King. Ranil is blocking the UNP from moving forward, others should bring the NCM.

    Second time Jayam Jayantha disasterly differed with SC on the 19A interpretation. Earlier he said New King could be there for 6 years but SC differed on that. Not fit to be AG again. He should resign with this.

    On Behalf of election commission, Ratnajeevan made history, by presenting it as petitioner while it was being sued in the court. Mahinda Deshapriya must now resign if he has shame. Ratnajeen has to be made the election commissioner.

    The murder story has to be verified when the parliament is convened.
    When India invaded Pirapaharan saved the land. Now Sampanthar and Tamil lawyers have done the same thing. They saved the land from Old and New King team- Hitler and Mussolini.

  • 1

    Attention seeking has started. Lawyers having a go here?
    Sumanthiran throws the constitution with a bang!
    SRH H ??
    Three ‘happenings’ need to be considered. RW sack. MR appointment. Dissolution.
    Dissolution, isolated and looked at, may be valid given the real possibility of violence spilling on to the street.
    The three together is a coup d’état. Without guns and/or bloodless, a coup is illegal.
    Are the lawyers avoiding to address this?

  • 0

    ” If we allow president to dissolve parliament at any time, it says that opinion the president trump all other opinions. There is only one word my lords -dictatorship ” Said Mr Hisbollah during his submission. Well said.
    Supreme Court is the last bastion of our democracy in this hour of need. Justice and democracy will prevail!

  • 1

    Puka Banda
    The President has said that he will not office even for an hour if Ranil Wickramasinghe is elected President. So he will have to stand down on his own words and the constitution will take over from there.

  • 1

    mangala samerasinghe and Faizer Mustafa claiming to be ministers are announcing local elections,

    And The election office personnel were seen. Endorsing it

    What a chaos in the country, no one knows who. Is incharge

  • 0

    Disgrace and disgusting the way the job was behaving trying to get out. Block democracy.

    People will remember this and will know whom. To. Vote in

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.