| News |
||||
| LSSP
claims case over 11 PA MPs was subverted LSSP leader Batty Weerakoon said his party had decided to withdraw the case filed in the Supreme Court as they were pre-empted from proceeding with the case before the three-member bench that was hearing it. Mr. Weerakoon withdrew the case on Wednesday by an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court. Mr. Weerakoon, who was the petitioner, told the Sunday Times that the case had been filed in January 2002 and arguments began in August this year. The three-judge bench had given October 27 and 28 for them to finish their submissions as they had already made the oral and written submissions and what was left were oral submissions to clarify matters. On the final day of submissions, the counsel for the third respondent, PA General Secretary D.M. Jayaratne, made an appeal to the Chief Justice that this matter should be argued before a five-judge bench because of the importance of the issues raised. The counsel asked that the Chief Justice fix the matter on this application for support in open court. The same day, the counsel for Mr. Jayaratne had mentioned the matter in court stating he was making the application under section 132 of the Constitution. He said that as a decision on this was due, the three-member bench should postpone the proceedings. The court had retired to consider this request and had come back, disallowing the application for a postponement, Mr. Weerakoon said. However, when the petitioner's came to court next day to continue with the proceedings, they were informed that the Chief Justice had already made an order without hearing them, fixing the hearing before a five-judge bench. "We were pre-empted from further proceeding with the case before the bench that was hearing it because the Chief Justice had added two others to that bench. And that meant it had to be heard afresh," Mr. Weerakoon said. The three-judge bench before it retired had fixed arguments before the five-judge bench for February 2004. Mr. Weerakoon said the LSSP central committee had considered this situation and decided there was no purpose in proceeding with the case when it was subverted in this manner. He said that
given the nature of the case and based on the experience of the
previous hearing it was likely to go on for at least another year
from February 2004. Mr. Weerakoon also said they did not press for costs because in the application by Mr. Jayaratne's counsel they had asked that the application for the five judge bench to hear the case be supported in open court. So the fault lay not with them but on the fact that the decision was made in chambers. Thus they were denied the opportunity to show court the circumstances in which this application is being made and that there was subversion of a case that had finally come to its last stages of hearing and near a decision. Mr. Weerakoon added that if they did not withdraw the case, it would have given legitimacy to the steps taken in this regard. In the case filed in January 2002, Mr. Weerakoon cited the Elections Commissioner, the General Secretary of the People's Alliance (PA) as well as the 11 PA national list MPs as respondents. Mr. Weerakoon, who as the leader of the LSSP - one of the PA's constituent parties -was to be included in the national list but was left out during the selection of appointees after the 2001 elections. Mr. Weerakoon said the PA General Secretary had made the appointment without consulting the PA Executive Committee and the Election Commissioner too had flawed by gazetting the name of those selected before the legally required number of days that should be allowed to lapse before the gazetting is done. |
||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved. |
