|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Saturday, 05 June 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Politics | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
| District Court issues enjoining order: JHU monk restrained from taking oaths as MP by Ranga Chandrarathne Colombo District Judge S.M.S. Samarakoon yesterday issued an enjoining order restraining the newly nominated Bhikku, Ven. Akmeemana Dayaratana Thera from taking oaths as a JHU MP in Parliament. The order is operative for one week from yesterday. The JHU nominated Ven. Akmeemana Dayaratana Thera, in place of Ven. Kathaluwe Ratanaseeha Thera who it was claimed had resigned from his Parliamentary seat. In his submissions to Court, Ven. Kathaluwe Ratanaseeha Thera who has filed a case seeking to restrain Ven. Akmeemana Dayaratana Thera from being appointed a Member of Parliament, said he was forced to resign from his parliamentary seat. He has cited Patalee Champika Ranawaka, Ven. Omalpe Sobhitha, Ven. Kolonnawe Sumangala, Ven. Uduwe Dhammaloka, and Ven. Akmeemana Dayarathana Thera as respondents. In his submissions, Ven. Kathaluwe Ratanaseeha Thera further states that on the first day of the new Parliament where the Speaker was elected, he along with the other Bhikku Ven. Aparekke Pagnasekara Thera voted with the UPFA Government. On May 12, 2004, while the plaintiff was at Moratuwa Sri Sambuddha Viharaya, the second, third and fourth respondents and the JHU leader had abducted him and forced him to sign some documents which he hadn't a chance to read. He had not placed his usual signature to the documents. The plaintiff states that he had been detained at a house in Pelawatte from where he had been brought to Parliament. The plaintiff stated that he had been abducted from his temple, Sambuddha Viharaya in Moratuwa, on May 12 at 8 p.m and taken to the JHU headquarters in Narahenpita, by 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents with 15 other monks. From there, he was taken to Devram Wehera in Pannipitiya, to several houses and a hotel at Koswatte, Nawala. On his way to Parliament, he was first taken in a van. They had stopped at some point and from there he had to get into a car. Inside the car, there was another monk not known to him, who had shown him an object like a bomb and said he would commit suicide if he revealed anything about the abduction. The plaintiff states that the second and the third respondents had taken him to Speaker, Lokubandara's Chambers and Secretary-General of Parliament, Priyani Wijesekara and the fourth respondent were also present. The third respondent had handed a document over to Speaker Lokubandara who then asked: "Is this the letter?" and the third respondent answered in the affirmative. Among other matters, the plaintiff prays to declare that he has not vacated his seat in Parliament and also to declare the alleged letter of resignation that the Secretary General of Parliament had accepted and the Gazette issued by the Commissioner of Elections on May 19, 2004 are null and void. When the case was taken up for hearing yesterday, Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, Wijedasa Rajapaksa, PC objected to a proxy being filed by Manohara de Silva, Counsel for the respondent. Counsel de Silva submitted that any citizen has a right to make a submission through a lawyer in any court of law and the plaintiff has no right to object. Consequently, the District judge allowed the application made by the counsel for the first respondent. He submitted as to why the plaintiff took such a long time to file this action, and this is because the plaintiff wanted to stop the fifth respondent taking oaths as an MP and functioning as an MP on Tuesday. The counsel argued that the unseating of an MP was purely a constitutional matter which does not come under the District Court's jurisdiction. This plaint is defective as the Commissioner of Elections or the Secretary General of Parliament have not been cited as respondents. If the Court accedes to the plaintiff's request, then it will be an intrusion into the legislature whose power is vested with the Constitution. If the Court grants relief sought by the plaintiff, this will adversely affect the respondents, he added. Wijedasa Rajapaksa PC submitted that this plaint was not against the Secretary General of Parliament or the Commissioner of Elections but against 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents who had abducted the plaintiff and got his signature by force to a letter of resignation. Therefore Parliament has no jurisdiction to determine the authenticity of this letter and this matter should be decided by the Court. A secretary of a political party has no power to appoint an MP for the vacancy created by the resignation of an elected MP. Instead, the next candidate who obtained the highest number of preferential votes will be appointed as the MP automatically. The complaint was delayed as the plaintiff was detained at various locations by the respondents. Considering the submissions made by both Counsel, Judge Samarakoon issued an enjoining order restraining the 5th respondent from taking oaths, sitting in the House, voting and appearing or assuming duties as an MP in Parliament. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
