DailyMirror
Writ application says commissioner has become a laughing stock
UNP General Secretary filing a writ application before the Court of Appeal challenged the conduct of Election Commissioner and claimed that his contradictory statements had made himself a laughing stock in the public eye.
Main Opposition Party General Secretary Tissa Attanayake in his application sought an interim order on the Commissioner of Elections to inform Court of any person or institution that refuses to obey and respect guidelines, measures and systems formulated and approved.
UNP General Secretary Tissa Attanayake in his writ application also expressed his apprehension and dismay that from the conduct of the Elections Commissioner and his contradictory statements that have been made by him from time to time has made him the laughing stock in the public eye.
In his petition filed through Attorney-at-Law K. Kaneshayoyan, he cited the Elections Commissioner and the Attorney General as Respondents.
He made this application seeking to compel Elections Commissioner to act in compliance with the Sovereignty of the People, Exercise of Sovereignty, right to equality and equal protection of the law as well as election to be free, equal and secret.
He stated that he and other representatives of the party had several meetings with Elections Commissioner during the
run up to the Presidential Elections held on January 26, 2010.
In one such meeting the Elections Commissioner agreed to introduce the use of the pen instead of the pencil, however during the Presidential elections, it was reported island wide that it was always a pencil that was used to cast the vote and not a pen as agreed by the Elections Commissioner, he said.
When this issue was brought to the notice of the Elections Commissioner at a meeting held on February 3, 2010 he expressed his dismay and asked the question back again as to whether a pen was not used in the casting of the vote, he stated.
In another fact, he stated that during the early run up to the Presidential election, the Elections Commissioner appointed a Competent Authority by virtue of the power that was vested in him.
When he found that his instructions sent through the Competent Authority were violated instead of taking further steps as statutorily empowered, he revoked the Appointment, he made in betrayal of the duties that are cast on him by virtue of Act No. 3 of 2002, he alleged.
In an another fact, he pointed out that when party representatives brought to his notice that Presidential Law was violated in putting up posters and hoardings, he instructed the IGP to take appropriate action.
He expressed dismay that however when the Elections Commissioner found that his instructions were no carried out by the IGP, he instructed the Party representatives not to send him any more complaints.
He pointed out that having taken such a stance, finally after the announcement of the final results, the Elections Commissioner thanked the IGP profusely for having assisted him in carrying out his duties as the Elections Commissioner and commended him unreservedly.
Pointing out the contradictory position taken by the Elections Commissioner, he further stated Elections Commissioner made a very blunt statement on January 27, 2010 that he was unable even to protect the ballot boxes but on February 3, 2010 he made further statement that he never made such a statement and contended that these contradictory statements impute doubt on the sincerity and credibility of the Elections Commissioner.
He alleged that the conduct of the Elections Commissioner has caused a serious damage on confidence of the people of the country on free and fair elections which is now mythical and drifting away rapidly due to the incoherent attitude of the Elections Commissioner.
He also said the Elections Commissioner made a speech on January 27, 2010 announcing the election results and he in unequivocal terms criticized the 17th Amendment of the Constitution and the 1978 Constitution as a piece of legislation that has been promulgated in mala fide and challenged the bona fides of the entire Parliament that passed it with 2/3 majority.
He stated the Elections Commissioner has no business to criticize the same as he is duty bound to comply with it with the oath he has taken to uphold and safeguard the Constitution.
He maintained that in this connection, the Elections Commissioner is liable to be charged for Contempt of Parliament.
He stated that the Elections Commissioner issued Guidelines dated December 19, 2009 with regard to the conduct of the electronic and print media with regard to the Presidential elections 2010.
Notwithstanding the said directives and in direct contravention of the order of the Supreme Court dated Janaury 15, 2010, the State Media including Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation as well as State controlled Independent Television Network Ltd and Associated Newspapers Ceylon Ltd, deliberately acted in a manner extremely partial and favourable to the President by carrying news items, documentaries and advertisements advocating his elections and totally defamatory of and against the Joint Opposition Candidate with no time given to him to refute the allegations, he stated.
He brought to the attention of the court that the manner in which the integrity and credibility of the electoral process has been called to question after the Presidential election held on January 26, 2010 and was alarmed and distressed by the blatant and callous disregard for the requirement to conduct the election in compliance with election laws and regulations and directives issued thereunder.
He stated that the Elections Commissioner has failed to formulae and implement several possible meaningful Guidelines an measures to secure and ensure free and fair elections keeping in mind the concerns of the civil society, covering vital aspects of the election.
He expressed apprehension that such failure has caused a loss of faith in the efficacy of the franchise in Sri Lanka, which is inimical to the rule of law and preservation of the sovereignty of the people and their fundamental rights.
He stated that he along with several others visited the office of the Elections Commissioner after the General Elections was called for on February 24, 2010 and urged him to take steps to publish and implement guidelines, however, this request has been to no avail and has not been acceded to.
He also complained that the Elections Commissioner at a meeting held on March 19, 2010 has arrogantly turned down the requests including the request to accommodate the foreign observers for the count at the forthcoming general elections.
Petitioner is also asking the Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to the Elections Commissioner to issue guidelines and to ensure its implementation.