Gamini Dissanayake (Petitio... - Human Rights Commission of Sri ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Gamini Dissanayake (Petitioner In Sc 4/91) V. Kaleel, M.C.M. And Others file:///C:/Documents and Settings/kapilan/My Documents/Google Talk ... The respondents deny that the said resolution was duly entertained by the Speaker inasmuch as the Speaker announced in Parliament on 08.10.91 that having inquired into the matter, he was of the view that the notice of resolution did not have the required number of valid signatures and accordingly it could not be proceeded with. The petitioners have joined issue on this and reiterate that the said resolution was duly entertained ; but those are proceedings in Parliament which this Court cannot or need not inquire into for the purpose of determining the applications filed by the petitioners. Reference will, therefore, be made to the said resolution only to the extent that the contents thereof may be relevant to the question before us namely, the validity of the impugned expulsion. The resolution alleges the existence of all the grounds for the removal of the President provided by Article 38 (2) (a). It alleges that the President is guilty of - (a) intentional violation of the Constitution and/or (b) treason and/or (c) bribery and/or (d) misconduct or corruption including the abuse of the powers of his office and/or (e) any offence under any law involving moral turpitude. It also alleges that the President is permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office by reason of mental or physical infirmity. This is followed by a purported statement of the particulars of the allegations. From that statement I have extracted the following items as they are relevant to a consideration of the conduct of the petitioners outside Parliament between 28.08.91 and 06.09.91. i.e. during the period prior to their expulsion which' conduct is evidenced by copies of news paper reports R 3A to R 3G and R 4A to R 4L. The respondents rely inter alia, on such conduct as constituting good grounds for the impugned expulsion. The resolution states that the President has - (1) violated several provisions of the Constitution whereby the powers of Parliament and of Cabinet Ministers have been undermined ; (2) given direct orders to Secretaries by-passing their Ministers; (3) engaged Secretaries to obtain confidential reports on their Ministers ; (4) endangered the security of the State by arming the liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and sending off the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKE) without considering military aspects. (5) resorted to unlawful telephone tapping including the telephones of Ministers ; (6) engaged in wasteful expenditure including for Gam Udawa Celebrations ; (7) established a one man dictatorship colloquially referred to as a "one man show." The newspaper reports R 3A to R 3G and R 4A to R 4L which have not been denied show that the petitioners led by the petitioners in applications Nos. 4, 5 and 8 had prior to 06.09.91 commenced a public campaign in the course of which they had agitated every one of the matters referred to above at regular press conferences and in statements to the media by them, and also in a speech made by the petitioner in application No. 4 at a religious ceremony in a temple and in a speech made by the petitioner in application No. 8 to the officers of the Education Ministry when he went there to wind-up duties upon resignation. One of the allegations contained in P 1 A is that on 28.08.91 after the speaker had informed the President that he had entertained the notice of resolution P 3B the petitioners in applications Nos. 5 and 8 joined the rest of the members of the Cabinet in passing an unanimous vote of confidence in the President by a show of hands individually. This has not been denied by either of petitioners ; and the petitioner in application No. 8 has in R 3B and R 4E admitted the event. On 03.09.91, 116 members of Government Parliamentary Group presented to the Speaker a writing dated 30.08.91 (R15) regarding the resolution for the removal of the President stating, inter alia, as follows : 38 of 56 4/20/2011 1:18 PM 210 211
Gamini Dissanayake (Petitioner In Sc 4/91) V. Kaleel, M.C.M. And Others file:///C:/Documents and Settings/kapilan/My Documents/Google Talk ... " We write to hereby inform you that we do not support the said resolution. Those of us who have placed our signatures do hereby withdraw and revoke our signatures and consent thereto ", and proceeded to request the Speaker not to place the resolution on the Order Paper. On 02.09.91 the same members passed a vote of confidence in the President (R16). This document also contains a statement that interested parties had obtained the signatures of certain Government and Opposition Members of Parliament through misrepresentation and deceit. Simultaneously with the above developments the petitioners commenced holding of daily press conferences which were presided over by the petitioners in applications Nos. 4, 5 and 8. At the first conference reported in the press on 01.09.91 (R 3G) which was attended by all the petitioners, they claimed to have with them 47 UNP M.P.s. The same number is claimed in R 4C (02.09.91) and R 4G (04.09.91). They also assured the public that the resolution will have the support of two thirds of the Members of Parliament and claimed that more will join them. In R 11K (06.10.91) they claimed that 44 out of the original 47 M.P.s were still with them. On 05.09.91 the petitioners filed actions in the District Court of Colombo. In the plaint (P4) they set out the events relating to the resolution for the removal of the President a copy of which they annexed to the plaint and state that they apprehend that the NEC and/or the Working Committee of the UNP would suspend or expel them from the party particularly in view of the fact that a meeting of the NEC had been summoned for 07.09.91 by a notice dated 05.09.91 a copy of which they annexed to the plaint. They prayed inter alia for a declaration that they are not liable to be so suspended or expelled and for an enjoining order and interim and permanent injunctions in that regard. On 06.09.91 the District Judge after hearing Counsel made order (P6) refusing to entertain the actions and refusing the enjoining orders sought by each of the petitioners. At 7.30 p.m. on the same day the Working Committee passed the resolution P1A expelling them. On 07.09.91 the NEC attended by 2500 members endorsed the decision of the Working Committee. The respondents state that subsequent to their expulsion the petitioners launched a country-wide campaign and condemned the Executive Presidential system and the party leader; between 10.09.91 and 20.10.91 they held public rallies for this purpose at Nugegoda, Kandy, Kurunegala, Kegalle, Badulla, Galle, Kalutara, Ratnapura, Kiribathgoda, Puttalam and Polonnaruwa. The petitioners do not deny this but state that these activities being subsequent to their expulsion are irrelevant to these proceedings and have been introduced to mislead the Court ; and further state that they did not campaign for the abolition of the Presidential system or the reversion to the pre 1978 system. They state that the essence of their contention in public was that the Executive Presidency should be made more accountable to Parliament and the President's powers should be reduced. After the Speaker ruled on 08.10.91 that the resolution for removal of the President cannot be proceeded with, the opposition moved a motion of no confidence in the Speaker. This was debated on 10.10.91; petitioners voted in favour of it whilst the Government Parliamentary Group voted against it. GROUNDS OF EXPULSION The grounds of expulsion as appearing in the Working Committee resolution (P1A) may be summarised as follows : 1. (a) Signing the notice of resolution (P3B) together with several members of the opposition which is an act of betrayal of the Party Membership and the confidence placed by the people in the Party and its Leadership at successive elections. (b) Signing the said notice of resolution without any prior information to the party or raising or discussing the same within the Party Organizations or the Government Parliamentary Group. 2. In particular the petitioners in applications Nos. 5 and 8 misled and deceived the Cabinet of Ministers on 28.08.91 into the belief that they were ignorant of and were not associated with the notice of resolution by joining the other members of the Cabinet in passing a vote of confidence in the President. 3. Having been elected to Parliament as UNP M.P.s on the basis of the Executive Presidential System and under the Leadership of the President ; (a) engaged in a public campaign against the Executive Presidential System which is the principle and policy of the UNP. 39 of 56 4/20/2011 1:18 PM 212 213
Page 1 and 2: Gamini Dissanayake (Petitioner In S
Page 37: Gamini Dissanayake (Petitioner In S

Gamini Dissanayake (Petitio... - Human Rights Commission of Sri ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?