By Chitra Weerarathne

The Supreme Court yesterday refused leave to proceed with all five fundamental rights violation petitions against the selection of Dhammika Perera to be appointed a National List Member of Parliament of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna.

Notice on Sagara Kariyawasam, the General Secretary of the SLPP was also refused.

The decision was given by a divided bench.

The petitioners included the Centre for Policy Alternatives and a few others.

The bench comprised Justice Priyantha Jayawardene, Justice Yassantha Kodagoda and Justice Arjuna Obeysekera.

President’s Counsel Gamini Marapana appeared for Sagara Kariyawasam, the General Secretary of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna. He said that 6.8 million people had voted for the SLPP at the General Election of 2020. But not a single one had protested against the selection of Dhammika Perera as a National List MP to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Basil Rajapaksa. Sovereignty is in the people including the right to franchise and the power of government. General Sarath Fonseka had been appointed a UNP MP via the National List although he had contested from a different party.

Sagara Kariyawsam is a respondent in the petition filed by the Centre for Policy Alternative against the selection of Dhammika Perera to be appointed as a National List MP.

Even Basil Rajapaksa was not in the Original National List. He was picked to be appointed from that list subsequently, the Counsel Marapana pointed out.

The Counsel said the SLPP had received 59.5 percent of the total votes polled at the general election of August 2020.

The petition did not qualify for interim relief, the Counsel argued.

Sagara Kariyawasam, wanted to bring in someone experienced in economic affairs. Hence, he had selected Dhammika Perera, the Counsel added, maintaining that the petition had no merit.

President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva appeared for Dhammika Perera.

Romesh de Silva PC, said that the appointment of Dhammika Perera, cannot violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

According to Section 64/5 when a seat in Parliament falls vacant the Secretary of the party contacts the Commissioner of Elections to elect, a suggested suitable person, Counsel said.

Counsel said that the Supreme Court cannot interfere with Parliament. The Speaker only does the swearing in of Members of Parliament.

In our democracy, we vote for the party. After that the party picks the Members of Parliament, depending on the voting pattern, the Counsel for Dhammika Perera said. The party picks the members after considering the preferential votes, he said. Article 9 (a) dealt with 196 elected Members. Article 99/A dealt with the other 29 National List MPs, he said.

All vacancies were filled in keeping with Section 5 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. When the names in the nomination papers are exhausted and if a vacancy occurs the party secretary concerned had the discretion to recommend a suitable candidate to the Commissioner of Elections, the Counsel argued.

Deputy Solicitor General Kanishka de Silva appeared for the Attorney General.

The DSG said that Article 99/A of the Constitution provided for the filling of the vacancy after a general election.

Article 64/1/4 deals with the filling of vacancies of elected members when there is a vacancy in Parliament, the Commissioner of Elections must contact the Secretary of the Party. The respondents in the petition had acted in compliance with the law, the DSG said.