Writ of Quo Warranto against Ranil: Order on objections on 21 May

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Court of Appeal yesterday reserved its order for May 21 on the Preliminary Objections raised on the maintainability of the Writ of Quo Warranto application against Ranil Wickremesinghe. 

The Bench, comprising Justices Shiran Gooneratne and K. Priyantha Fernando, granted the parties to file their Written Submission on or before 1 April.

UPFA Colombo Municipal Councillor Sharmila Gonawela, who is Co-President of ‘Women for Justice’, filed the Writ of Quo Warranto (a writ or legal action requiring a person cited to show by what warrant an office is held) petition against Ranil Wickremesinghe from being a Member of Parliament.

Uditha Egalahewa PC with N.K. Ashokbharan appeared for the Petitioner and made his reply to the Preliminary Objections.

Petitioner cited Ranil Wickremesinghe, Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, and General Secretary of Parliament Dhammika Dasanayake and two others as Respondents.

K. Kanag-Iswaran PC, appearing for Ranil Wickremesinghe, in his Preliminary Objections submitted that it is a pure and mandatory law that the Petition shall be filed in compliance with the Court Rule. The documents annexed hereto the Petition are not duly certified and so the application cannot be supported.

He alleged that all documents filed are photocopies and blank papers, and he maintained that law prohibits such copies.It is a mandatory requirement to file certified documents, and the Petition shall be supported by original or certified documents where the Rule regulates the mode of enforcing the law, he stated.

He contended one cannot proceed to the next step while failing to comply with the Rule.

He invited the attention of the Court whether the documents filed by the Petitioner could be relied on.

The documents filed by the Petitioner should have been certified by the Custodian, who is the legal keeper of said documents, but they were not certified by him, and what is exhibited is in total violation of Court Rule, he pointed out.

Suren Fernando, appearing for Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, in his Preliminary Objections contended that the Petitioner should have filed all documents at the stage of filing the Petition, but she did not.

He stated there are no necessary parties cited as Respondents in the Petition, and so the application is fatal.

He sought the Court to award futile cost to the Respondents, as the Respondents retain private counsels for themselves.

He said the documents have no signatures, the photocopies of the documents were not signed by the Custodian, and insisted as the petition was not proper, it must be dismissed in limine.Senior Deputy Solicitor General Vikum de Abrew also raised Preliminary Objections on the maintainability of the Petition. He submitted that the Petitioner has suppressed material facts.

The Petitioner seeks the Court to declare that Ranil Wickremesinghe’s membership in Parliament was null and void.

Instructed by G.G. Arulpragasam, K. Kanag-Iswaran PC with Niranjan Arulpragasam appeared for Ranil Wickremesinghe, and Suren Fernando appeared for Akila Viraj Kariyawasam.