Legality of Fonseka expulsion hinges on interpretation of Article 89

[TamilNet, Friday, 14 January 2011, 03:16 GMT]
Sri Lanka’s Court of Appeal is to announce on January 25th the constitutional interpretation from the Supreme Court whether the phrase “any court” in Article 89/d of the Constitution emcompasses within its meaning the "court marshall." The thirty months rigorous imprisonment imposed by Court Martial on former Commander of the Sri Lanka Army Sarath Fonseka resulted in his expulsion from the parliament.

Sarath Fonseka was elected from the Colombo district as a member of parliament  of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) polling highest number of preferential votes.

The five-member Supreme Court chaired by the Chief Justice Asoka de Silva took up the request of the Court of Appeal in respect of a Writ Application filed by Sarath Fonseka who has challenged the constitutionality of the Court Martial.

The relevant articles of Sri Lanka's constitution state, in part,
    Artilcle 91(1)(a) of the Constitution stipulates that "No person shall be qualified to be an elected member of parliament or to sit and vote in the Parliament--
    (a) if he is or becomes subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Article 89 [of the constitution]--

    The Article 89(d) of the Constitution provides that "if he is serving or has during the period of seven years immediately preceding, completed serving of a sentence of imprisonment 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"

The Court of Appeal has decided to announce the SC interpretation on January 25.

Attorney General President’s Counsel Mohan Pieris in his submissions before the Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had asserted that Court Martial is a “Court” within the meaning of the words “any Court" in Article 89 (d).


Latest 15 Reports
04.02.24 15:40   Photo
சியோனிசம் காணும் தோல்வி ஈழத்தமிழருக்குப் பலன் தரவல்ல படிமை மாற்றத்தின் அறிகுறி
24.04.22 05:44  
தீவின் நெருக்கடிச் சூழலில் ஈழத்தமிழர் தேசம் கடைப்பிடிக்கவேண்டிய நிலைப்பாடுகள்
09.04.22 14:44   Photo
குறிதவறும் ஈழத்தமிழர் தலைமைகளுக்கு வரலாறு தருகின்ற எச்சரிக்கை
21.01.22 07:24   Photo
ஈழத்தமிழர் தேசத்தின் தலைமைத்துவம் தேர்தல் அரசியற் கட்சிகளுக்கு அப்பாலானது
02.11.21 15:32   Photo
13 ஆம் சட்டத்திருத்தத்தால் கட்டமைக்கப்பட்ட இன அழிப்பை எதிர்கொள்ள முடியுமா?
15.09.21 08:19  
English version not available
17.05.21 19:23   Photo
Ananthi blames war criminal Silva for blocking collective memorial at Mu'l'livaaykkaal
09.04.21 14:46  
English version not available
23.03.21 12:41   Photo
No focus on Tamil genocide, geopolitics gets played out in Geneva in favour of QUAD formation
21.03.21 13:34   Photo
Navi Pillay explains ‘human rights’ limitations in Geneva on Tamil genocide
15.03.21 20:36   Photo
Deceived Tamil activists in UK falsely claimed ‘substantial changes’ to Zero draft
09.03.21 21:34   Photo
UK repeatedly wronged Tamils says hunger-striker, demands genocide justice
26.02.21 11:53   Photo
Tamils witness false dilemma in Geneva as geopolitical formations pit against each other
19.02.21 14:02   Photo
UK not prepared to push for ICC option in new UNHRC Resolution
07.02.21 23:16   Photo
Unprecedented P2P uprising paves the way for rights-oriented politics of Tamils and Muslims
Find this article at: