Attorney-at-Law Nagananda Kodithuwakku filed a Fundamental Right petition yesterday seeking a direction to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya to suspend any further action on the request made by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe urging a ruling from the Speaker on the constitutionality of a Supreme Court Judgment popularly known as the Singarasa case.

The petitioner also requested for an interim order against any action by the Speaker on Wickremesinghe's request until the determination of the petition.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, President Maithripala Sirisena through the Attorney General and Speaker Karu Jayasuriya are named as respondents.

The Petitioner stated that on the 07th July 2016, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, requested a Ruling from the Speaker on the constitutionality of the Supreme Court Judgment popularly known as the Singrasa case which directed that the local laws shouls prevail even in the case when the country becomes a signatory of an international agreement. Wickremesinghe made a request to change this provision on the basis that the jurisdiction for constitutional competence of the President to acceded to the optional protocol of the ICCPR is with the Parliament and not with the Supreme Court.

The Petitioner stated the statement of the Prime Minister and the action proposed by him, becomes a direct violation of the inalienable sovereign rights of the people, enshrined under Article 3 of the Constitution.

The petitioner further said failing to prevent the course of action demanded by the Prime Minister, it shall be a breach of petitioner’s Fundamental Rights and rights of the other citizenry of the Republic guaranteed by the Article 12(1) of the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court in the Singarasa case agreed that the government of Sri Lanka had set out the correct legal position which stated its responsibility to the Human Rights Commission (HRC) as follows. “The constitution of Sri Lanka and the prevailing legal regime do not provide for release or retrial of a convicted person after his conviction is confirmed by the higher appellate Court. Therefore the state does not have the legal authority to execute the decisions of the HRC to release the convict or grant a retrial. The government of Sri Lanka cannot be expected to act in any manner which is contrary to the constitution.