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.”