MR and Cabinet restrained functioning

By Shehan Chamika Silva

Court of Appeal today issued an Interim Order restraining Mahinda Rajapaksa and Forty Eight other respondents from functioning in the offices of Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, none Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers respectfully until the final hearing and determination of the Writ of Quo Warranto petition Writ filed by 122 Parliamentarians of diverse parties disputing the holding of offices.

The Bench comprising Justices P. Pathman Surasena (President/CA) and Arjuna Obeysekara also issued notices on the respondents returnable for December 12.

Petlitioners in their writ of Qou Warranto Petition requiring the Respondens to show in what authority they claim to function as Prime Minister and respective offices as Cabinet Ministers and non-Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers.

Before making the order President of the Court Appeal, Prithi Pathman Surasena observed two aspects of the order.

He said when the Court is to make an order on issuing notices to the respondents in Quo Warranto Writ petition, the court is not bound to give reasons for its decision unless the petition is dismissed, yet he said that the Bench decided to set out reasons for their decisions.

He also said that when an Interim Order is granted that decision is not the final determination of the court, and one should bear in the mind that fact when interpreting the order without prejudicing the parties of the case.

Delivering the reasons, Judge Surasena observed that the matter is of national importance and has to be dealt with great care.

He explained that the petitioners, as 122 parliamentarians, have submitted in the petition arguing that they have twice passed  No Confident Motion in Parliament on November 14, 2018 and November 16, 2018 under the provisions of the Constitution.

In view of the fact that the petitioners have twice passed  No Confidence  Motion, Justice Surasena observed that under the Article 48 (2) of the Constitution, when a No Confidence Motion is passed in Parliament against the Prime Minister, the Cabinet of Ministers shall dissolve.

He also elaborated that the interim order is not restraining the functioning of the Prime Minister or Cabinet of Ministers in the Country, ‘but only restraining the respondents as individuals from functioning in those offices’.

He also observed the irremediable damages that could cause from this interim order. First he pointed out that the due to the interim order country may end with no Prime Minister and Cabinet. However, he said allowing the respondents to hold the offices would cause more damage than that of previous.

If these respondents were allow to exercise their functions until the matter is heard , the court is of the view, that considering Prime Ministers and Ministers are exercising very important public functions under the law, therefore, the court is able to see that balance or convenience is in favour of 122 petitioner Parliamentarians. 

K. Kanag Iswaran PC with Ikram Mohammad PC, A.M.Faiz, Viran Corea and Suren Fernando appeared for the Petitioners.

Gamini Marapana PC with Navin Marapana as well as Romesh de Silva PC, Manohara de Silva PC, Sanjeeva Jayawardena PC, Ali Sabry PC and Shaveendra Fernando PC appeared for the respondents.