Geetha’s appeal against CA judgment before five-judge SC divisional bench

By S.S. Selvanayagam

Senior Counsel contended in the Supreme Court that former actress turned politician Geetha Kumarasinghe’s candidacy should have been objected to at the time of her nomination or by way of an election petition.

President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva, with Sugath Caldera and Niran Anketell, made his submission for Kumarasinghe.

The divisional bench of five judges comprised Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, B.P. Aluvihara, Sisira J. De Abrew, Anil Gooneratne and Nalin Perera.

The Supreme Court on 15 May granted Special Leave to Appeal with the application filed by Galle District UPFA Parliamentarian Geetha Kumarasinghe seeking to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal which disqualified her as a Member of Parliament on her impugned dual citizenship.

In the majority decision of the bench comprising Justices Eva Wanasundera, Upaly Abeyrathne and Anil Gooneratne, the Court extended the Interim Order staying till final determination the operation of the Court of Appeal judgment and fixed the hearing for 25 September.

Kumarasinghe filed her appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal which cancelled her seat in Parliament over her dual citizenship.

J.C. Welamuna appeared for the petitioner-respondents W.W.E. Buweneka, J.K. Amarawardhana, A.C. Gunasekera, J.K. Wijesinghe and Prasanna Deepthilal.

Santhaka Jayasundera appeared for respondent-respondent UPFA Secretary Prof. Vishwa Warnapala. Deputy Solicitor General Nerin Pulle with Senior State Counsel Suren Gnanaraj appearing for the respondent-respondents the Controller of Immigration and Emigration, and the Attorney General.

The Court of Appeal on 5 May ruled that she was not entitled to hold the post of a Member of Parliament as she had contested the election while being a dual citizen.

Justice Preethi Padman Surasena with Justice Vijith Malalgoda (CA President) agreeing also directed the State to recover the cost from her as the debt to the State for the each day she sat in the Parliament knowing that she was being a dual citizen and being disqualified to be a member of Parliament.

The Attorney General had informed the Court of Appeal that Kumarasinghe was still a citizen of Switzerland and according to the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, a person who has dual citizenship cannot be a Member of Parliament.

The Appeal Court held that Kumarasinghe could no longer function as a Member of Parliament as she had contested the general election while bearing dual citizenship.

Kumarasinghe holds dual citizenship in Sri Lanka and Switzerland.

Under the Constitution of Sri Lanka, no person can be elected to Parliament if they hold dual citizenship.

Five voters of the Galle District had filed the writ petition in the Court of Appeal requesting court to declare Kumarasinghe ineligible to remain as a parliamentarian while holding dual citizenship.

The Court held that under the 19th Amendment to the Constitution a dual citizen was not eligible to contest for parliamentary membership and therefore Kumarasinghe no longer could function as a parliamentarian.

The petitioners had stated that Kumarasinghe was a holder of dual citizenship and she had contested the 2015 Parliamentary Election without divulging her dual citizenship at the time of submitting her nomination.

They had claimed she by virtue of the Constitution is not qualified to be elected as a Member of Parliament and charged that she is thus a usurper of the authority of a Member of Parliament.

She had been declared as a Member of Parliament representing the UPFA from the Galle District, they had stated.

They had sought the Court of Appeal to issue a prerogative writ order requiring her to show by what authority she claims to hold office as a Member of Parliament and an another order declaring that she is disqualified to be a Member of Parliament and was thus not entitled to hold office as a Member of Parliament.