Supreme Court dismisses Fonseka’s FR application

Nelka MEDAGEDARA

The Fundamental Rights application filed by Sarath Fonseka seeking an adequate security detail and vehicle fleet was dismissed by the Supreme Court yesterday without costs.

Court observed that there was no sufficient legal basis to inquire into the petition which was dismissed at the outset.

Court noted that Commissioner of Elections has been vested with the powers to hold a free and fair election in terms of Section (b) 4 of the Constitution. Hence if the Court issues an order in this respect it would be in conflict with the powers vested in the Commissioner of Elections.

The Bench comprised Chief Justice Asoka N. de Silva and Justices Nimal Gamini Amaratunga, and P.A. Ratnayake.

Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa,the Army Commander, Acting Chief of Defence Staff, the Secretary to the President and the Attorney General were cited as respondents.

Attorney General Mohan Peiris PC made lengthy submissions objecting to the petition.

He noted that the Retired General had already been assigned a 92 member security detail. Also since the retired General is already a Presidential candidate he is barred from filing a fundamental rights petition under Section 12 (1) of the Constitution.Therefore filing on the basis that Section 12(1) was violated is bad in law.

The Attorney General declared that to claim that his Fundamental Rights have been violated for political reasons the petitioner ought to have invoked Section 12(2).

In addition, the petitioner has been provided security as a privilege. Hence any changes affected to this security cannot be termed a violation of Fundamental Rights.However he would not say that the petitioner should not have some form of security. But the petitioner has requested for a 600 strong security contingent. In an annexure to the petitioner, he had requested for 520 security personnel. In the letter to the President, the Petitioner had requested for 79 security men.

However he has been granted 96 security men above the figure requested.The petitioner in a quandary is unable to decide how many security personnel he needs. The Attorney General said the petitioner has been granted a security detail above that which he has requested for and if his request is granted ever, retired Army Commander would demand for 600 security men for his protection. In addition, this will lead to every citizen coming before court requesting security.

The Attorney General said the petitioner demanding extra security considering himself as a unique case shows that he is living in a world of fantasy.