Responding to a questions posed by Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa regarding MP Ranjan Ramanayake - his conviction and parliamentary seat, Justice Minister Ali Sabry gave a lengthy explanation regarding the legal provisions in the Constitution with reference to the conviction of the MP and the sentence of MP Ranjan Ramanayake as well the legal provision in the Constitution regarding his Parliamentary seat.

Minister Sabry first directed the attention of the Parliament to sub-section (d) of Article 89 of the Constitution which refers to the disqualification to be an elector.

It stated as below,

89. No person shall be qualified to be an elector at an election of the President, or of the Members of Parliament or to vote at any Referendum, if he is subject to any of the following disqualifications, namely –

(d) if he is serving or has during the period of seven years immediately preceding completed serving of a sentence of imprisonment (by whatever name called) for a term not less than six months imposed after conviction by any court for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than two years or is under sentence of death or is serving or has during the period of seven years immediately preceding completed the serving of a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than six months awarded in lieu of the execution of such sentence: Provided that if any person disqualified under this paragraph is granted a free pardon such disqualification shall cease from the date on which the pardon is granted;

The Minister pointed out that MP Ramanayake is currently serving his sentence. He also emphasized that as opposed to the comparison with the case involving MP Premalal Jayasekara, MP Ramanayake’s verdict was issued by the Supreme Court, which is the apex court of the country.

“Since 1972, we do not have any other appeal to Britain or the Privy Council,” the Minister noted, “so there is no appeal pending.”

Referring to another article (89 & 105) in the Constitution which was referred by the Opposition Leader, Minister Sabry stated that the Supreme Court was given that power by the terms of the Constitution itself. Reading the sub-article (3) of Article 105 which refers to the Judiciary, the Justice Minister remarked that the power given to the Supreme Court in relation to the contempt of court is unlimited.

The sub-article (3) of Article 105 is as follows.

(3) The Supreme Court of the Republic of Sri Lanka and the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Sri Lanka shall each be a superior court of record and shall have all the powers of such court including the power to punish for contempt of itself, whether committed in the court itself or elsewhere, with imprisonment or fine or both as the court may deem fit.

Regarding the power given to the Supreme Court, “it had been given by this Parliament itself,” the Minister said.

Agreeing with a point put forward by MP M.A. Sumanthiran, Justice Minister stated that there is no contempt law in the country. The Minister added that it is a fact that needed to be addressed on “another day”.

However, the Justice Minister Ali Sabry stated “Supreme Court had done it, the Supreme Court is the apex court. Supreme Court has the power. We have conferred that power,”.

Speaking further the Minister noted that he is not a “fan” of contempt of court and that he finds it as a “necessary evil”.

“You can constructively criticize the court, but if you go beyond your limit, and if you want to scandalize the court… I don’t think the court can sit idly and wait. Because nobody will take the court into all seriousness and no one will respect the law".

A parliamentarian pointed out, "we must protect the dignity of all three institutions; the Judiciary, Executive and the Parliament.”

“Nothing has happened against the law. Nothing has happened over the law. All had happened in terms of the Constitution and the laws formulated by this particular House itself.” commented Ali Sabry.