SINGARASA VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL

SINGARASA VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUPREME COURT
SARATH N. SILVA C.J.
JAYASINGHE, J.
UDALAGAMA, J.
DISSANAYAKE, J.
AMARATUNGA, J.
SC. SPL. L.A. 182/99
CA 208/95
HC COLOMBO 6825/94
DECEMBER 5, 2005
JANUARY 25, 2000
FEBRUARY 24, 2005

Prevention of Terrorism (Temp) Provision Act 48 of 1979 Revision/Review of Judgement of Supreme Court-Pursuant a finding of the human Rights Committe (HRC) Geneva-International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Communication 1033/2000 under Optional Protocol-Legitimate expectation that findings of HRC will be enforced?- Accession to optional protocol 1997 incorporated with provisions of Constitution?- Monist Vs. Dualist Theory- Were legislative or other measures taken by state party in accordance with its constitutional provisions-Validity, if not? Does the covenant have an internal effect? Binding? Judicial power exercised in terms of Article 4 (c)?- Conferment of Judicial power on HRC- Legality- Artical 4(1), 4(c), 4(e)33, 33(F), 75, 76(1), 118.

Petitioner was indicted for trial before the High Court on five charges under the Emergency Regulations and Prevention of Terrorism [Temporary] Provisions Act 48 of 1979. After trial he was convicted of all 5 charges and sentenced to terms of 10 years R1 on each to run consecutively. Petitioner's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed - subject to a reduction of sentence. Special leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court was dismissed on 28.1.2000. Petitioner thereafter filed the instant application on 16.8.2005 - for revision/review of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on 28.1.2000 and to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court and affirmed by

the Court of Appeal on the basis of and pursuant to the findings of the Human Rights Committee - Geneva established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in communication 10033 of 2000 made under Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

Held:

(1) The Covenant contains certain rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on which the Fundamental Rights contained in Articles 10-14 of the Constitution are based.

(2) The Covenant is based on the premise of legislative or other measures taken by each State party in accordance with its Constitutional processes.

(3) In Sri Lanka fundamental rights have been guaranteed in the Constitution of 1972 and in the present Constitution and enforced by the Supreme Court even prior to the ratification of the covenant inl980. The Government has not considered it necessary to make any amendments to the Constitution as to fundamental rights and the measures for their enforcement as contained in the Constitution presumably on the basis that these provisions are an adequate compliance with the requirements of Article 2 of the Covenant.

(4) The Sri Lankan Constitution is cast in a classic republican mould where sovereignty within and in respect of the territory constituting one country is reposed in the people. Sovereignty includes legislative, executive and judicial power exercised by the respective organs of State for and in trust for the people.

(5) Organs of Government do not have a plenary power that transcends the Constitution and the exercise of power is circumscribed by the Constitution and written law that derive its authority there­ from.

(6) The President, as Head of State is empowered to represent Sri Lanka and under Customary International Law enter into a treaty or accede to a covenant the contents of which are not inconsistent with the Constitution or written law.

(7) Judicial power forms part of the sovereignty of the people and could be exercised in terms of Article 4 (c) of the Constitution, only by Courts, Tribunals or institutions or recognized by the Constitution or by law.

Per Sarath N. Silva, C.J.

"The resulting position is that the petitioner cannot seek to vindicate and enforce his rights thro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document