Presidents files objections in election petition

Says it should be dismissed at the outset:

The relief sought in the election petition are misconceived in law and cannot be granted under the provisions of the Presidential Elections Act, stated UPFA Presidential candidate Mahinda Rajapaksa, filing his preliminary objections to the election petition filed by Opposition presidential candidate General Sarath Fonseka, seeking to dismiss it in limine.

The preliminary objections stated that the election petition does not accompany a proper and valid affidavit in support of the allegations of the corrupt practices and does not conform to the requirements of the Presidential Elections Act.

They also stated that the petition does not conform to the requirements of the sections of the Presidential Elections Act since neither does it set out the full particulars of the purported corrupt practices nor contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner rely on to obtain the relief prayed for.

They further stated that the petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 14 of the Presidential Elections Petitions Rules of 1981 as the petitioner has failed to serve notice of the presentations of the petition accompanied by a copy of the petition to the respondents within the stipulated time period.

According to the preliminary objections the petitioner has failed to make Rupvahini Corporation, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC), Lakhanda, Independent Television Network (ITN) respondents to the application, although these institutions alleged to have committed a corrupt practice i.e. they have broadcast or telecast statements of the 20, 24, 25 and 26 respondents.

They argued that the petitioner does not disclose any corrupt practice of making false statements within the meaning of section 80(1)(c) read with the Section 91(c) of the Presidential Election Act in that the purported statements which are pleaded as false in paragraphs 16 A, B, C of the petition do not constitute a “false statement of fact in relation to the personal character of the Petitioner.”

They contented that the petition does not contain a concise of material facts and does not set forth full particulars of alleged corrupt practice of making false statements as set out in the paragraph 16 A, B and C of the petition.

The objections stated that the petitioner is guilty of misrepresentation of material facts. In particular statements which are alleged as false in the paragraph 16 C of the petition in fact do not constitute false statement of fact and are false and deliberately intended to mislead the court.

The Supreme Court will hear the preliminary objections on September 13,14 and 15.