Diana’s UK citizenship issue: SC moved against CA judgment

Civil Soceity activist Oshala Herath has appealed to the Supreme Court against the determination made by the lower court in respect of State Minister Diana Gamage’s citizenship issue.

Herath, a one-time media aide to President Maithripala Sirisena and defeated UNP candidate at the last general election held in Aug. 2020, has moved the Supreme Court in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution against the judgment of CA in the high profile case. The original case has been filed in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution for a mandate in the nature of a writ of Quo Warranto.

The petitioner has requested the Supreme Court to set aside the judgment of the CA given on Oct 31, 2023 and also an interim order to prevent first respondent State Minister Gamage from attending Parliament pending the final hearing and determination of the appeal.

The petitioner has challenged Diana Gamage’s appointment as a National List MP on the basis of her being a holder of British citizenship.

The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) accommodated Diana Gamage on its National List following the last general election. She is one of the seven MPs appointed on the SJB NL.

The Petitioner informed the apex court that a Divisional Bench of the CA in a divided judgment upheld the purported preliminary objections of the first respondent and dismissed his application.

The Petitioner stated that in the dissenting judgment, Justice Marikkar issued a Writ of Quo Warranto declaring that the first respondent is disqualified to be a Member of Parliament and is thus not entitled to hold office as a Member of Parliament of Sri Lanka.

The Petitioner stated, however, the President of the CoA together with Justice K. Swarnadipathi did not go into the merits of the application before the Court and instead upheld the purported preliminary objections taken by the first respondent at the time of argument.

The petition listed the following questions of law that may be raised by the Counsel for the Petitioner at the hearing of this application:

a. Did the Court of Appeal err in law in its application of the law for a Writ in the nature of a Writ of Quo Warranto?

b. Did the Court of Appeal err in law in failing to appreciate that in a Writ of Quo Warranto the burden of proving title and/or authority to Public Office is on the 1st Respondent?

c. Did the Court of Appeal err in law in its application of principles of Writs of Mandamus and/or Procedendo and/or Certiorari in a Writ of Quo Warranto?

d. Did the Court of Appeal err in law in not holding that the 1st Respondent is disqualified from holding office as a Member of Parliament upon her refusal to provide proof of her Sri Lankan citizenship in terms of the Law?

e. Did the Court of Appeal err in Law in failing to appreciate that the Petitioner’s application relates to the franchise of the people of the Republic? (SF)