Structural defect in Fonseka's petition bad in law - Counsel for Respondents

Sarath MALALASEKERA

All Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents in the Presidential Election Petition yesterday in their lengthy submissions submitted before the Supreme Court that structural defect (sd) in the petition filed by Sarath Fonseka is bad in law and moved Court to dismiss the petition.

The Bench comprised Chief Justice Asoka de Silva, Justice Dr Shirani A Bandaranayake, Justice K Sripavan, Justice P A Ratnayake PC and Justice S I Imam. Solicitor General President's Counsel Priyasath Dep appearing for the Elections Commissioner stated that there is no evidence or any material or statements in the petition that the Elections Commissioner had violated the elections laws during the Presidential Election.

The Senior Counsel who made submissions before Court on behalf of Respondents are President's Counsel D S Wijesinghe, President's Counsel Nihal Jayamanna, President's Counsel S S Sahabandu, President's Counsel Palitha Kumarasinghe, Attorney S L Gunasekera, Manohara de Silva, Kushan de Alwis, Gamini Marapona and A J Nails.

President's Counsel D S Wijesinghe, Senior Counsel for President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the first respondent in the Presidential Election Petition, submitted to the Supreme Court that this is the first time in the history of Election Petitions in the country that the Petitioner moved Court to declare him as the President elect and not moving to void the elections.

President's Counsel Wijesinghe emphasised that the petitioner in his petition stated that the last Presidential Election was held under duerest and several incidents of bribery, corruption and treaty were reported. But no courrptions, treaty and bribery were proved beyond reasonable doubt. There were no material facts before Court in this respect.

Petitioner Sarath Fonseka asked Court to declare him as the elected President of the election held under dueress, with a corruption and also that it was not free and fair election. This is very strange, the Senior Counsel said.

President's Counsel Wijesinghe submitted in the light of the fatal irregularities contained in the petition and the failure of the Petition to comply with several mandatory provisions of the Presidential Election Act, the petition of the Petitioner should be dismissed in LIMINE.

The Petitioner Sarath Fonseka cited 26 Respondents including President Mahinda Rajapaksa, other 21 candidates, Commissioner of Elections Dayananda Dissanayake, three agents and Minister Wimal Weeraswansa.

On a Court order Petitioner Sarath Fonseka was present in Court yesterday during the proceedings.

The petitioner does not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 95 (1) (b) of the Presidential Elections Act, in that, the Petitioner has failed to join, Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Lakhanda and Independent Television Network as respondents to the petition, the Senior Counsel said..

President's Counsel Wijesinghe in their lengthy submissions said that objections are filed for the limited purpose of formulating the preliminary objections to the petition of the petitioner and does not constitute a statement of objections filed for the purpose of refuting any averments of facts and law raised in the petition. The Petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 14 of the Presidential Election Petition Rules, 1981, set out in the Fourth Schedule to the Presidential Election Act No 15 of 1981 (as amended) in that, the petitioner has failed to serve notice of the presentation of the petition accompanied by a copy of the petition.

The President's Counsel argued that the petition doest not disclose any corrupt practice of making false statements within the meaning of Section 80 (10) (c) read together with Section 91 (c) of the Presidential Elections Act, in that the purported statements which are placed as false in paragraphs 16 (A), (B) and (C) of the Petition do not constitute "false statements" if fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of the petition.

The petitioner does not conform to the requirements of Section 96 (c) of the Presidential Election Act, in that, it does not contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petition relies to obtain the relief prayed for in his petition, Senior Counsel added.

Further hearing will commence today. President's Counsel Jayatissa de Costa, Senior Attorney Upali Senaratne, Kaushalya Molligoda, Chamila Talagala and Isuru Somadasa instructed by Athula de Silva appeared for first respondent President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Attorneys Rasika Harischandra, Upali Samaraweera, Naveen Marapona, Suren Fernando appeared for some of the respondents. Senior Attorney Upul Jayasuriya with Attorneys Madubahsa Ariyadasa, Kelum Kumarasinghe and Sandamal Rajapaksa instructed by Asoka Somaratne Associates appeared for the petitioner.