February 17, Colombo (LNW): The Court of Appeal today heard preliminary objections raised by the Attorney General regarding a petition seeking to revoke the Parliamentary seat of Minister of Public Security, Ananda Wijepala.
The petition, lodged by Renuka Perera, the Administrative Secretary of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), prompted a legal dispute before the Acting President of the Court of Appeal, Mohamed Lafar Tahir, and Justice K.M.S. Dissanayake.
In the proceedings, the Additional Solicitor General, representing the Attorney General, argued that the petition was flawed due to the omission of critical stakeholders as respondents.
Specifically, the President’s Chief of Staff, who is appointed by the President’s Secretary on the President’s directive, was not included in the petition.
The Additional Solicitor General stressed that the absence of the President’s Secretary in the case was a significant legal oversight, rendering the petition invalid and unable to proceed.
Given these concerns, the Attorney General’s representative requested that the petition be dismissed outright, without further examination.
On the other side, Attorney Upul Kumarapperuma, representing Minister Wijepala, contended that the President personally appointed the Chief of Staff and argued that such an act could not be challenged in the Court of Appeal through a writ petition.
He further questioned the court’s jurisdiction over the matter and requested its dismissal on the grounds that it fell outside the court’s purview.
Meanwhile, Attorney Vishva Perera, appearing for the petitioner, clarified that the challenge was not regarding the appointment of the Chief of Staff, but rather the eligibility of Minister Wijepala to sit in Parliament and cast a vote.
Perera emphasised that the primary concern was whether the minister met the legal requirements to hold his parliamentary seat.
Taking these arguments into account, Acting President of the Court of Appeal Mohamed Lafar Tahir noted the raised preliminary objections and decided that a ruling on the matter was necessary before the case could progress further.
The court then instructed all involved parties to submit written submissions on the objections by 18 March 2025, to facilitate a decision on whether the petition could move forward.
