RANJAN RAMANAYAKA

VS.

SECRETARY GENERAL OF PARLIAMENT AND ANOTHER

COURT OF APPEAL
OBEYESEKERE, J. (P/CA)
COREA, J.
CA/WRIT/52/2021
MARCH 16, 18, 2021

Writ of prohibition-Articles 66(d), 89(d), 91(1)(a), 105(3) of the Constitution-Parliamentary Elections Act, No. 1 of 1981, section 64(1)- Vacation of parliamentary seat-Disqualification of a sitting member of parliament-Conviction and sentence for the offence of contempt of court-Ministerial act

The petitioner, an elected Member of Parliament, was convicted for the offence of contempt of court punishable under Article 105(3) of the Constitution and sentenced to a term of four years rigorous imprisonment by the Supreme Court. He filed this application before the Court of Appeal seeking a writ of prohibition prohibiting the 1st respondent, the Secretary General of Parliament, from taking steps in terms of the Parliamentary Elections Act, No. 1 of 1981, to inform the Elections Commission that he has vacated his seat as a Member of Parliament in view of the said conviction and sentence.

Held :

1. Article 89 contains disqualifications inter a/ia to be an elector of the Members of Parliament. For Article 89(d) to apply, the petitioner must be serving or should have completed serving during the period of seven years immediately preceding, a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than six months imposed after conviction by any court of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than two years.

2. Under Article 91 (1)(a) no person shall be qualified to be elected as a Member of Parliament or to sit and vote in Parliament if he is or becomes subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Article 89.

3. Under Article 66(d) the seat of a Member of Parliament shall become vacant if he becomes subject to any disqualification specified in Article 89 or 91.

4. Ministerial acts are not subject to judicial review. Although the 1st respondent does not inquire into the validity of the conviction, he is nonetheless required to make a determination as to whether the petitioner has in fact become subject to a disqualification specified in Articles 89 or 91. Such a determination is not a ministerial act and therefore is subject to judicial review.

5. Once the 1st respondent determines that the seat of a Member of Parliament has fallen vacant as a result of any disqualification, then he is mandatorily required to inform the Election Commission of such fact enabling the latter to take steps as provided in section 64(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act to fill the vacancy. This function of the 1st respondent is a ministerial act.

6. Contempt of court is an offence for the purposes of Article 89(d).

7. The conviction contemplated by Article 89(d) shall be for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than two years. This does not imply that the offence must be such as to carry a minimum mandatory sentence of two years.

8. Article 105(3) does not place any limitation on the punishment imposed by the Supreme Court and instead empowers the Supreme Court to impose punishment as the court may deem fit.

9. On the facts and circumstances of this application, a writ of prohibition does not lie.

Cases referred to :

1. Ranawaka Sunil Perera v. Sadda Vidda Rajapakse Palanga Pathira Ambakumarage Ranjana Leo Sylvester Alphonsu alias Ranjan Ramanayaka (SC/RULE/1/2018, SC Minutes of 12.01.2021)

2. A.M.E. Fernando v. Attorney General [2003] 2 Sri LR 52

3. S.B. Dissanayake v. Priyani Wijesekera, Secretary General of Parliament and others (CA/WRIT/3/2005, CA Minutes of 26.05.2005)

4. Rex v. Electricity Commissioner, ex p. London Electricity Joint Committee Co [1924] 1 KB 171 at 206

5. Gamini Atukorale v. Dayananda Dissanayake, Commissioner of Elections and others [1998] 3 Sri LR 206

6. Seenithamby Palkiararajah v. Dayananda Dissanayake, Commissioner of