Counsel for intervenient petitioners request SC to direct EC to hold poll without delay

• Counsel submit EC deliberately delaying poll in support of petitioners
• Says behaviour of one EC member casting doubts about its independence
• SC decides not to consider one of intervenient petitions after counsel makes contradictory statements
• Submissions on behalf of intervenient petitioners concludes
• Further hearing postponed till Monday

Counsel for the intervenient petitioners in the Fundamental Rights application filed challenging the Gazette dissolving Parliament and the one on the date of the election yesterday requested the five-member Bench of the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission (EC) hold the Parliamentary Election without delay.

Counsel Shavindra Fernando, PC who appeared for intervenient petitioner Anura Fonseka said that there is no justification in the submission made on behalf of the EC that they would need 10-11 weeks to hold the election and said there seems to be a deliberate attempt to delay the poll by the petitioners and the EC. He also said that the behaviour of one member of the EC has led to people questioning the independence of the EC.

The submissions were made before a five-member Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya and Justices Buwaneka Aluvihare, Sisira de Abrew, Priyantha Jayawardena, and Vijith Malalgoda on the ninth day of hearing into the Fundamental Rights petitions.

Faiszer Musthapha, PC who appeared on behalf of UPFA General Secretary Mahinda Amaraweera said that there was no legal basis to the call by the petitioners to revoke the Gazette notification issued by the President. He said there is a provision in the Parliamentary Election Act to delay a poll if an unexpected situation arises and this has been done by the EC.

Counsel Kanishka Vitarana who appeared for another Petitioner Premnath Dolawatta said that there is no provision for a dissolved Parliament to be recalled unless there is an emergency and said the EC is delaying the election and thus denying people of their right to vote and thus violating their fundamental rights.

Meanwhile the SC decided not to take up for consideration the petition filed by Pradeep Kumar Panagoda after his Counsel Chrishmal Warnasuriya spoke in support of the petitioners who are challenging the dissolution of Parliament, saying the republic cannot function without a Parliament and that the Gazette issued by the President is invalid.

After his submission, Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya queried from Warnasuriya if he was representing the intervenient petitioner or the other side and remarked there is a contradiction between his oral submissions and his written submissions.

At this point Warnasuriya said he would consult with his client and inform the Court, but the CJ said the Court would not take up his petition due to the contradictions.

Submissions on behalf of intervenient petitioners concluded yesterday. Further hearing was postponed till 1 June.