|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Saturday, 14 February 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Politics | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
by Indeewara Thilakarathne Colombo Additional District Judge, G. A. D. Ganepola on Wednesday issued an interim order restraining the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) from holding the Central Committee meeting scheduled to be held at Ampara December 25, 2003. The order was sequel to a petition filed by TULF President V. Ananda Sangari. In this case, the plaintiff V. Ananda Sangari has cited TULF members R. Sampanthan and Joseph Pararajasingham as respondents. The plaintiff, among other matters, states that after the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka accord, most TULF members who left for India, had returned to the Country and the then leader of the TULF, A. Amirtalingam was appointed MP on the National list. The plaintiff states that he was appointed the President of the TULF after the demise of M. Sivasitamparam. According to the party Constitution, the General Secretary of the party should call a meeting on the Party President's advice. The plaintiff states that the General Secretary had called a Central Committee meeting on November 30, 2003 and that the plaintiff presided over it. At the meeting, a no-confidence motion was moved against the plaintiff and that a member raised an objection to the motion, stating that the Central Committee was not empowered to consider such a motion. However, later through the media the first and the second respondents stated that the no-confidence motion was passed by 25 votes out of 27 at the Central Committee meeting and the plaintiff should have resigned from the post and the plaintiff did not accept the claim by the respondents. The plaintiff states that he had not called the scheduled Central Committee meeting on December 21, 2003 at Tirukovil in Amparai. The principal allegation levelled at the plaintiff by the respondents was that the plaintiff had refused to accept the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamils that included in a statement by the second respondent to the "Sunday Times" of December 7, 2003. The plaintiff claims that he came to know through the media that the LTTE had instructed the first and the second respondents to oust him from the party and that he could not attend the scheduled meeting at Ampara as his life is in danger. Therefore the plaintiff urged Court to restrain the first and second respondents from holding the meeting or calling any meeting of the TULF without his permission. Wijedasa Rajapaskse, PC with Kapila Liyanagamage instructed by Dissanayaka Ameratunga Associates supported the application. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
