News
Kiriella insists it’s prerogative of Speaker to bring Ranjan from prison to Parliament
By Saman Indrajith
Chief Opposition Whip and Kandy District MP Lakshman Kiriella yesterday told Parliament that it was the prerogative of the Speaker to bring MP Ranjan Ramanayake or not.
Raising a point of order, MP Kiriella said that neither the court nor the Department of the Attorney General could intervene in the matter and asked the Speaker to summon MP Ramanayake to Parliament.
“The Appeal Court, in the matter of MP Premalal Jayasekera, said that it was the duty of the Speaker to allow or disallow an MP to sit in Parliament. It said that the court had no powers in that matter. Anura Bandaranaike, as the Speaker, once clearly stated that the court could not intervene in parliamentary affairs. Similarly, during the tenure of Chamal Rajapaksa as the Speaker, the court gave a ruling to stop the impeachment against Shirani Bandaranayake but the Speaker did not stop it on the same ground that the court could not intervene in the affairs of Parliament. Therefore, the Speaker is the one who should make the final decision in this regard.
“The Speaker has made a statement that if the Attorney General and Court permitted him to bring MP Ramanayake to Parliament, he would do so. When he tried to bring Premalal Jayasekera, the Attorney General objected, but the Speaker went ahead using his powers and allowed Jayasekera to attend Parliament. That means the Speaker has the powers, and, therefore, I request hims bring MP Ramanayake to parliament.
Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa said that MP Ramanayake had been sentenced to jail for contempt of court and soon after that the Chairman of Elections Commission had stated that Ramanayake’s parliament seat might go vacant only if he continued to be in jail for over six months.
“According to that statement, Ramanayake still is an MP and he should be allowed to attend Parliament. He has that right under the privileges of an MP. As per legal experts, the sections 66, 89, 91 and 105 have ensured that he is still an MP. The Speaker is duty bound to ensure the rights and privileges of MPs so he is expected to take action to facilitate MP Ramanayake’s coming to parliament,” Opposition Leader Premadasa said.
TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran: “I want to flag several points in this regard. Before doing so, I am bound by the law and tradition to disclose my interest in the matter as the counsel who appeared for Ranjan Ramanayake in his case at the Supreme Court. I was privileged to appear for a clean and honest politician in court and I am proud of that. Nevertheless, he has been convicted and sentenced. The sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment is unprecedented and exceptionally severe. Parliament has a responsibility in this regard because we have not enacted a law for contempt of court. This has an implication to the Articles in the Constitution the Opposition Leader has just mentioned because it says for an offence for which the prescribed punishment is two years or more. There is nothing prescribed in the law, for parliament has failed to enact laws for contempt of court. Although there have been in the public realm a lot of instances where even drafts had been made we have not done that. By failing to do that, it has been something like freedom of the wild ass anything can be given as a sentence. That is not a good thing. In this case, Parliament has to take steps to enact a law. English law is to be substantive law because we do not have statute law now, and in English law itself scandalizing the court is no longer an offence of contempt of court. Unfortunately the court disregarded it. I like to bring to your notice a serious lacuna in the law with regard to statute for contempt of court in this unprecedented injustice to an honest member of parliament.”
Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage: Sumanthiran is the one who put Ramanayake in trouble by instructing him to go to the Supreme Court. You did not even go to the court when he was sentenced. Not a single MP was there to support Ranjan. If another lawyer had appeared for Ranjan Ramanayake he would have walked free today. Ramanayake did not have a counsel on that day. We all are saddened by the predicament Ranjan Ramanayake is in today. I have filed two cases against him and next week I will withdraw them by filing two motions because if those cases would be heard to an end, Ramanayake may get four more years in prison. We stand for MPs’ rights, but do not forget Ramanayake denigrated and continued to humiliate the judiciary. The Speaker should consider that the ruling to imprison Ramanayake was given by the Supreme Court.
MP Premalal Jayasekera: I was imprisoned by a High Court. We have records that one of the MPs had been told by the then Justice Minister that I would be sent to gallows. She had said the same to one of the chairmen of an institute. Therefore, I appealed against the judgment handed down to me. However, the ruling given to MP Ramanayake is not by a High Court but by the Supreme Court – the highest and apex court of the country. He has no court to go above that.
State Minister Nimal Lanza said that Ramanayake had humiliated and denigrated all, not only parliament, judiciary, police but all. “Ramanayake is in the same plight as the proverbial woodpecker that finally pecked on the banana tree. MP Sumanthiran should have pointed out those laws at the court not here.”
Justice Minister Ali Sabry: “We regret punishment MP Ramanayake received. The Opposition Leader cited Section 89 of the Constitution. The sub section 4 of section 89 clearly states that no person shall be qualified to be an elector at an election of the President, or of the Members of Parliament or to vote at any Referendum, if he is subject to the following disqualification. That is if he is serving or has during the period of seven years immediately preceding completed serving of a sentence of imprisonment (by whatever name called) for a term not less than six months imposed after conviction by any court for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than two years or is under sentence of death or is serving or has during the period of seven years immediately preceding completed the serving of a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than six months awarded in lieu of execution of such sentence, provided that if any person disqualified under this paragraph is granted a free pardon such disqualification shall cease from the date on which the pardon is granted. So it is clear that Ramanayake is presently serving. This is different from the case of Premalal Jayasekera. The Supreme Court is the apex court of the country and since 1972 we cannot refer its decisions to another court for reversal. So no appeal is pending.”
News
BASL takes exception to Justice Ganepola being denied a place in SC
… highlights injustice caused to Justice R. Gurusinghe
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has alleged that due to the failure on the part of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to fill the existing vacancies in the Supreme Court, a Senior Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Dhammika Ganepola, retired at the age of 63 without being considered for, or granted, a promotion to the Supreme Court, to which he was well entitled. The BASL pointed out at the time of Ganepola’s retirement there were four vacancies in the Supreme Court.
In a letter dated 17 August, 2026, addressed to President Dissanayake, the BASL declared that the failure to promote and recognise Ganepola’s distinguished judicial service, resulting in his retirement at the age of 63, is indeed a loss to the Judiciary.
A top BASL spokesman told The Island yesterday (30) that the Bar Council, over the weekend, had decided to release the hitherto confidential letter.
The official said that they also wanted to remind the President of his assurance given to BASL, on 12 August, 2026, that vacancies in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal would be filled as soon as possible, within a month.
The following is the text of the BASL letter, signed by Rajeev Amarasuriya, President, BASL, and its Secretary Nalin De Silva: “We write further to our letters dated 29th December 2025 and 30th June 2026 in relation to the above, to which we have not received any response.
We also refer to our meeting with Your Excellency on 12th August. As discussed during the meeting, there have been vacancies in the Supreme Court since May 2025, and the number of vacancies has now increased to four (04). There are also four (04) vacancies in the Court of Appeal. These are all matters we have already written to Your Excellency about.
Your Excellency informed the BASL Delegation when we met that you would be taking steps to make recommendations to fill these vacancies as soon as possible, within a month.
We write to reiterate the importance of giving due consideration to the criteria set out in our aforesaid letter dated 29th December 2025. We also wish to emphasise that, in making judicial appointments and promotions, seniority should be given due priority, in keeping with longstanding practice, until such time there are objective and defensible guidelines governing the assessment of merit.
The only justifiable departure to this criterion would be where there exists a specific and recognized demerit in respect of the particular Judge concerned or such other known compelling circumstances that are objectively identifiable such as where a Judge has previously been overlooked for promotion unfairly or conversely, where a Judge has been unfairly previously granted promotions above others.
This approach will safeguard both the integrity of the Judiciary and the trust reposed in it by the public.
Further, while there has been considerable discussion and representation by the Government regarding the importance of retaining experienced judges, as reminded to Your Excellency at our said meeting that, only a few months ago on 8th May 2026, a Senior Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Dhammika Ganepola, retired at the age of 63 without being considered for, or granted, a promotion to the Supreme Court, to which he was well entitled, and in which there were four vacancies at the time.
The failure to promote and recognise his distinguished judicial service, resulting in his retirement at the age of 63, is indeed a loss to the Judiciary.
We also drew Your Excellency’s attention at the said meeting to the fact that the Senior-most Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice R. Gurusinghe, who joined the Judicial Service in 1996, who also Acted in the Office of President of the Court of Appeal (appointed by Your Excellency) on 11th May 2026, is due to retire at the end of this month. In fact, we learnt through the Media that Her Ladyship then Chief Justice Justice Murdu Fernando, PC, had previously in July 2025 recommended to Your Excellency the promotion of Justice R. Gurusinghe to the Supreme Court, but the same is pending from that time.
He too is well deserving of promotion to the Supreme Court and has already been recommended by the former Chief Justice, and his case must also receive due and urgent consideration before his impending retirement.
We hope that Your Excellency will take due note of and give due regard to the concerns of the Bar, as well as to the established principles, practices and conventions governing judicial appointments, when taking steps to fill these vacancies.
On this, Your Excellency is already open to the accusation that these vacancies have been kept open, to fill with favourites of the Government which is yet another serious indictment on the independence of the judiciary which accusation would be confirmed if recommendations are made outside established practice.
Moreover, the BASL expresses grave concern that withholding promotions of Judicial Officers for extended periods of time places undue pressure on Judicial Officers in the discharge of their duties and constitutes both directly and indirectly, interference with the independence of the Judiciary, in addition to the strain obviously caused to the dispensation of justice in other Courts and the stifling and delay of career progression of Judges legitimately entitled to promotions.
We do hope that Your Excellency would take due note and cognizance of the foregoing when effecting these judicial promotions which have been long overdue and which have already adversely impacted the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of justice.”
The BASL has copied the letter to Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickremaratne, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and all members of the Constitutional Council.
News
Sajith challenges govt. to hold PC polls
Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa on Saturday (29) challenged the government to hold the long-delayed Provincial Council elections, saying the polls would provide an opportunity to gauge the level of public support enjoyed by the administration.
Addressing a farmers’ meeting in Tissamaharama, Hambantota, Premadasa also criticised the latest Rs. 17 per kilogram increase in wheat flour prices, warning that it would push up the prices of bread, bakery products and other flour-based food items and place further pressure on households already struggling with the rising cost of living.
He said Sri Lanka ranked 120th among 130 countries in an international comparison of minimum wages, arguing that wages remained inadequate to meet the escalating cost of living.
Premadasa also questioned official assessments of living standards, asking whether a person could survive for an entire month on Rs. 17,315, a figure he attributed to the Department of Census and Statistics.
He claimed that between 30 and 40 percent of the population was living in poverty and called for a clear programme to help affected families improve their economic conditions.
Turning to the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which seeks to increase the retirement age of superior court judges, the Opposition Leader accused the government of attempting to undermine judicial independence and interfere with democratic institutions.
He also criticised the government’s handling of poverty, employment, agriculture, healthcare and investment, saying more effective measures were needed to provide relief to people facing economic hardships.Premadasa called for stronger policies to attract foreign direct investment and urged the government to formulate a national strategy for developing the tourism industry.
News
Mahendran denies name change allegation
Former Central Bank Governor, Singapore citizen Arjuna Mahendran has denied speculation that he has changed his name. In an email to the editor of the Sunday Island, Mahendran has said:
“It has been brought to my attention that a minister of the government of Sri Lanka has made a public statement that I have changed my name. I wish to inform you and your readership that such an allegation is entirely false. I would be grateful if this statement is published by your esteemed newspaper.”
The mail was signed Lakshman Arjuna Mahendran, 20 Cuscaden Road, Singapore.
-
News6 days agoMissing doctor’s body found in Mahiyanganaya
-
News6 days agoAustralia declines to release Finance Secy Suriyapperuma’s citizenship details
-
News3 days agoEight politicians in drug kingpin probe
-
News6 days ago22A: BASL suggests CJ recuse himself from hearing petitions
-
Business3 days agoSri Lanka opens up: A new season of direct connectivity
-
Features1 day ago“Wrap Me Up in My Blazer”— A Gentlemanly Bradby Reminiscence
-
Features5 days agoInsights from Chieftains of Uva: Genealogy of two Kandyan Families – Part II
-
Features3 days agoRedefining ageing in Sri Lanka
