If aggrieved by reduction of term, President should have gone to court before 19A was enacted: Couns

Friday, 12 January 2018 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

Manohara De Silva PC, argues that no pronouncements on constitutionality of the 19th amendment now that the bill has been enacted

By S.S. Selvanayagam

Counsel Manohara de Silva PC, appearing for the intervenient petitioner Prof. G.L. Peiris on the question of the term of office of the incumbent President Maithripala Sirisena, countered the contention of the Attorney General and maintained that under Article 30(2) of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, the President holds office for a term of five years.

He submitted that the incumbent President can hold office under the transitional provision 49 in the 19th Amendment subject to the provision of the Constitution as amended by the 19th Amendment and the 19 Amendment amends the term of the President to five years from the six years previously provided for.

De Silva PC told the Supreme Court that if the incumbent President was aggrieved by the reduction of his term of office, he should have come to the Supreme Court under Article 121(1) when the 19th Amendment Bill was presented to Parliament.

He told the Court that the President did not invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the issue at that time when the Bill was placed in the Parliament order paper.

He submitted that the 19th Amendment has now been enacted and no person can invoke the jurisdiction for a pronouncement on the Bill as under Article 124 which reads: “Otherwise provided in Articles 120, 121 and 122, no court or tribunal created and established for the administration of justice or other institution, person or body of persons shall in relation to any Bill, have power or jurisdiction to inquire into, or pronounce upon, the Constitutionality of such Bill or its due compliance with the legislative process, on any ground whatsoever.

Counsel for Professor Peiris said if the President was aggrieved that his term of office is curtailed, he could have asked for a referendum. He contended that a term of office can be reduced by a person holding office without affecting the sovereignty of the people but one cannot extend his or her term of office without going for a referendum before the people.

He said there was no question of law or fact or interpretation and it is not a matter of public interest and it is used for political benefit.

Ali Sabry PC, Uditha Egalahewa PC, Kalyananda Thiragama, Krishmal Warnasuriya and Viran Corea also appearing for different Intervenient petitioners Tissa Vitharana, Wimal Weerawansa, Centre for Policy Alternatives, Dr. Gunadasa Amarsekera and Keerthi Tennekoon of CAFFE made similar submissions.

Supreme Court directed the Counsels to hand over their written submissions today (12) before 12 noon.