Row over death row MP

Wednesday 2nd September, 2020

The government and the Attorney General are at loggerheads over the eligibility of Ratnapura District SLPP MP Premalal Jayasekera, who has been sentenced to death for murder, to sit in Parliament. The government insists that since Jayasekera has appealed, he can function as an MP.

Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena recently directed the Prisons Department to bring Jaysekera to Parliament when the government MPs questioned him why the MP in prison had not been brought to the House. It is reported that the Commissioner General of Prisons, unable to take a decision, referred the matter to the Justice Ministry, which sought the AG’s opinion thereon. The AG has said Jayasekera is disqualified from becoming an MP due to his conviction and death sentence. His appeal has led to the suspension of only his sentence and not his conviction, the AG has maintained. The government has sought to dispute the AG’s position, insisting that it is up to the Speaker to decide whether Jayasekera can sit in Parliament or not. If so, why on earth did the Justice Ministry ask the AG for his opinion on the matter, as media reports say?

It looks as though governments sought the AG’s opinions but accepted only those that are favourable to them. One may recall that the Speaker of the last Parliament, Karu Jayasuriya, sought and went by the Attorney General’s opinion on a vital Bill, in 2017. He allowed the Provincial Council Elections (Amendment) Bill to be changed at the committee stage by claiming that the AG had said it could be done. The yahapalana government inserted a whole slew of sections into the Bill to postpone the provincial council elections indefinitely. The incumbent government is urging the Speaker to disregard the AG’s opinion having reportedly asked for it!

At the time of being nominated to contest the general election from the Ratnapura District, Jayasekera had not been convicted, and he was not debarred from facing the general election even after he was convicted and sentenced to death. The main Opposition party, the SJB, informed the Election Commission (EC) that Jayasekera was disqualified from contesting, but its objections went unheeded. Jayasekera received as many as 104,237 preferential votes and came second on the SLPP Ratnapura list. People having thus elected him, their franchise arguably comes into play. What if one argues that depriving Jayasekera of his seat is tantamount to a violation of people’s franchise?

Ideally, the SLPP should not have nominated Jayasekera, an accused in a murder case, to contest an election. Or, it should have been officially announced before the day of polling that he had been disqualified. Or, the dispute that his election has given rise to could have been averted if the Constitution had specifically mentioned what should be done in the case of a candidate being convicted and sentenced to death, etc., with his or her appeal pending, between his or her nomination and the conduct of an election, after the publication of his or her name on the official list of contestants. If there had been such a constitutional provision, the EC would have been able to disqualify Jayasekera before the general election. This is something that the framers of the proposed Constitution should take notice of.

Interestingly, the EC is reported to have said that if Jayasekera is to be prevented from entering Parliament on legal grounds, lots will have to be drawn to select an MP for the vacant SLPP seat, for there are two candidates eligible to enter Parliament having polled the same number of preferential votes (53,261).

The Speaker and the AG are on a collision course, and both are determined not to blink, as it stands. The sooner, the Jayasekera issue, as it were, is sorted out, the better. The conclusion of the appellate process at issue may be considered a way out. Perhaps, an expeditious hearing of Jayasekera’s appeal will help avert another politico-legal crisis and, above all, an ugly showdown between the Speaker and the state prosecutor.