Archives

by Rodney Martinesz

If a member of a political party entered Parliament through nominations from that party he is subject to the disciplinary control of that particular party.

He can challenge his expulsion from the political party which nominated him but he cannot say that he was not a member of that party when expelled.

The above submissions were made by President's Counsel, Nihal Jayamanne appearing for Minister Ferial Ashraff in the expulsion case of National List MP, Basheer Segudawood of the National Unity Alliance.

The Bench comprised Justices Dr. Ranjith Ameresinghe, S. W. B. Wadugodapitiya, PC and D. P. S. Gunasekera.

Counsel stated that petitioner is having entered Parliament from the NUA is bound by the disciplinary code of the NUA which gave him nomination and when disciplinary process takes effect he cannot say he was not a member of the party (NUA).

He said the NUA Constitution vests special disciplinary powers on its leader to act against NUA members while being obligated to recognise the disciplinary action against members of the SLMC and the SLPF which formed the NUA.

That does not mean that merely because the SLMC and SLPF does not take such disciplinary action the leader of the NUA is precluded from doing so.

The special powers vested in the leader is contained in Clause 10 of the NUA Constitution which superceded any Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

If there are no individual members in the NUA as argued by petitioner's counsel. What is the purpose of this special disciplinary powers granted to the leader? Mr. Jayamanne asked.

Justice Amarasinghe: That may be to discipline the NUA politburo members.

Counsel: These too are members of the SLMC - a member of the constituent parties of the NUA.

Justice Amarasinghe: The power is there but it has to be exercised according to procedure. It is mandatory for the NUA to recognise the disciplinary procedure of the SLMC. You cannot dismiss a Member of Parliament on its own stream but only with the concurrence of the constituent parties.

Earlier Mr. Jayamanne raised a preliminary objection that petitioner cannot come before the Supreme Court under Article 99 (13)(A) of the Constitution after having stated in his petition that he was not a member of the NUA at the time he entered Parliament.

According to counsel Article 99 (13)(A) can be invoked only where an MP ceased to be a member of the political party which nominated him by virtue of expulsion. This was a matter for the District Court to decide.

President's Counsel, K. N. Choksy submitted that all what he wanted was for his client to be prevented from being expelled from Parliament and the time would run out by the time the D/C procedure was exhausted.

What he was challenging was the purported expulsion and the Supreme Court is vested with the jurisdiction to hear the case.

Nihal Jayamanne, PC with Anandalal Nanayakkara with M/S Vineetha Collure appeared for 1st respondent Minister Ferial Ashraff.

Wijedasa Rajapaksa, PC with Nizam Kariappar, Dhammika Abeygunawardena and Rasika Dissanayake appeared for M. I. M. Rafeek and the NUA.

Parakrama Karunaratne with M. M. Abdul Kalam and M. I. R. Haathee appeared for the SLPF.

Mr. K. N. Choksy, PC with D. S. Wijesinghe, PC, Daya Palpola, Ronald Perera, A. M. Faaiz and U. Abdul Najeem instructed by G. G. Arulpragasam appeared for Basheer Segudawood.

Sanjeewa Jayawardena with Sujeewa Senasinghe, Mariam Mansoor and Shadiya Zanoon instructed by M. C. M. Muneer appeared for N. M. Shahied and NUA.

Romesh de Silva, PC with Harsha Amarasekera instructed by Hussain Ahamed appeared for Rauff Hakeem.

Ikram Mohamed, PC with Ian Fernando, Ms. Shyama Fernando, Thissath Wijegunawardena, M. S. A. Wadood and Lal Munasinghe instructed by I. L. M. Azwar appeared for Dr. A. L. M. Hafrath and the SLMC.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager