DSG expresses fears Ameresekere’s Notes filed in SC becoming public

Saturday, 11 February 2012 00:15 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices N.G. Amaratunga, Suresh Chandra and Sathya Hettige on Thursday heard the Fundamental Rights application of Petitioner Nihal Sri Ameresekere, public interest activist, on the commonly referred to Expropriation Law.

The Respondents were represented by President’s Counsel D.S. Wijesinghe and Deputy Solicitor General Janak de Silva.

Ameresekere in his submissions urged the Supreme Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction and rescind the Supreme Court Determination, which had been given based upon which Parliament had passed the controversial Bill.

Ameresekere based his arguments on Article 123 of the Constitution, that in the case of an urgent Bill, if the Supreme Court entertains a doubt, then the Bill is deemed by the Constitution to be inconsistent with the Constitution. Ameresekere made his submissions on the Supreme Court Determination from a Note he tendered to Court. Tendering a further Note to Court, together with the House of Lords Judgment in the Case of Pinochet, whereby the House of Lords rescinded its own earlier Order on grounds of perceived bias, Ameresekere tendered a further Note to the Supreme Court, without making Oral Submissions on the same, urging that the Supreme Court Determination could not stand in the circumstances, which are similar to that in the House of Lords Case on Pinochet, where the previous House of Lords Judgment had been rescinded by the House of Lords itself, exercising its inherent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court having heard the argumentative submissions of Petitioner Ameresekere, however upheld the preliminary objections taken by President’s Counsel D.S. Wijesinghe and Deputy Solicitor General Janak de Silva, that a five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had already dismissed several Applications on the same matter, and accordingly dismissed Ameresekere’s Application.

Ameresekere countered submitting that his Case was different in that the Determination was per-incuriam and ultra-vires Article 123 of the Constitution. Deputy Solicitor General Janak de Silva expressed apprehension to Court that the Notes submitted to Court by Ameresekere would be disclosed in the media. The Supreme Court directed that the Notes submitted by Petitioner Ameresekere be returned, so that the same would not be a part of the record.

The first Note tendered by Ameresekere was whilst he was making submissions on doubts entertained by the Supreme Court, as disclosed in the Supreme Court Determination. There is much speculation in legal circles as to what was contained in Ameresekere’s second Note for the Deputy Solicitor General to have expressed such apprehension.