IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

In the matter of an Application for Writs in the nature of

Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus in terms of Article 140 of
the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

Nihal Sri Ameresekere

167/4, Sri Vipulasena Mawatha
Colombo 10.
PETITIONER
Case No. 1661/2003
Vs.

1. Kandiah Susilar
Commissioner General of Inland Revenue
Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha,
Colombo 2.

2. S.A.C.S.W. Jayatilleke
Director General of Customs
Customs House, Bristol Street,
Colombo 1.

3. Parakrama Ekanayake Bandara

Director General of Excise
28, Staples Street,
Colombo 2.

4. Ranjan Samaraweera
Controller of Imports & Exports
75 1/3, 1st Floor, Hemas Building
York Street,
Colombo 1.

5. H.A.G. Hettiarachchi
Controller of Exchange,
Central Bank of Sri Lanka
5th Tower, Level 7, Janadhipathi Mawatha,
Colombo 1.

6. A.S. Jayawardena
Governor, Central Bank of Sri Lanka
Chairman, Monetary Board of Sri Lanka
1st Tower, Level 15,
30, Janadhipathi Mawatha,
Colombo 1.

7. Ananda Coomaraswamy
Chairman, Commission to Investigate Allegations
of Bribery or Corruption
36, Malalasekera Mawatha,
Colombo 7.
 8. Charitha Ratwatte
Secretary, Ministry of Finance
& Secretary to the Treasury
Secretariat,
Colombo 1.

9. Kairshasp Nariman Choksy

Minister of Finance
Secretariat,
Colombo 1.

10. Hon. Joseph Michael Perera

Speaker of Parliament of Sri Lanka
Parliament of Sri Lanka
Sri Jayawardenepura
Kotte.

11. W.J.S. Karunaratne

Secretary to Her Excellency the President
Presidential Secretariat
Colombo 1.

12. K.C. Kamalasabayson, P.C.

Hon. Attorney General
Attorneys General’s Department,
Colombo 12.
RESPONDENTS

TO: HER LADYSHIP THE HONOURABLE PRESIDENT AND THEIR LORDSHIPS THE OTHER HONOURABLE
JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

On this 29th day of September 2003

The Petition of the Petitioner above-named appearing by Razmara Abdeen practising under the name, style
and firm of ABDEEN ASSOCIATES, and his Assistants, Bushra Muheesa Hashim, Manjula Pasquel,
Chamari Tharanga Athukorala and Horogoda Gamage Nadeeja Pragathi his Registered Attorneys-at-Law,
states as follows:

1. The Petitioner is,

a) a citizen of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka;

b) a Fellow Member of the Institute Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka and the Chartered
Institute of Management Accountants of UK; and

c) practising as a Consultant, having functioned as a Senior Consultant on World Bank and

USAID funded economic infrastructure re-structuring projects of the Government of Sri
Lanka, and as an Advisor to the Ministry of Finance.

2
2. The Petitioner is presenting this Petition on his behalf and for and on behalf of the general public,
in the national and public interest, exercising constitutional rights, and performing his duties
particularly under Article 28 of the Constitution;

a) to uphold and defend the Constitution and the law

b) to further the national interest
c) to preserve and protect public property
d) to combat misuse and waste of public property

3. a) The 1st Respondent is the Commissioner General of Inland Revenue to whom “declarations” were
to be made, and who was to issue “acknowledgements in writing” to “declarents” under and in
terms of Inland Revenue (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 2003 in respect of certain Statutes
listed in the Schedule to the said Act No.10 of 2003, and to grant “amnesties” to “declarents”.
b) The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents are public officers on whom powers of enforcement are
vested by the said Statutes listed in the Schedule to the said Act No. 10 of 2003, and who are now
required to grant “amnesties” to the aforesaid “declarents” in respect of violations of the
provisions of the said Statutes.

c) The 7th Respondent is the Chairman of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or
Corruption, which Commission is not precluded from ascertaining from the 1st Respondent
the identity of the aforesaid “declarents” and any informations contained in their
“declarations” made under Act No. 10 of 2003.

d) The 8th Respondent is the Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Secretary to the Treasury and the 9th
Respondent is the Minister of Finance. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents function under the
purview, direction and control of the 8th and 9th Respondents, more particularly in relation to Act
No. 10 of 2003. The 9th Respondent also has power to make Regulations under Section 8 of Act
No. 10 of 2003.
e) The 10th Respondent is the Hon. Speaker of Parliament, who in terms of the Constitution, is
bound to ensure that Bills presented to Parliament are in conformity with the constitutional
mandates, procedures, limitations and prohibitions, and are within the scope of the “limited
legislative power” conferred by the People on Parliament to be exercised in trust on their behalf,
without the alienation of their sovereignty, which is inalienable (Article 3, read with Article 4 (a)
of the Constitution), prior to Bills being placed on the Order Paper of Parliament and/or
proceeded with and/or certified by him.
f) The 11th Respondent is the Secretary to Her Excellency the President, who, presenting a Note on
Act No. 10 of 2003 to the Cabinet of Ministers, inter-alia, pointing out the violation of Article
34 of the Constitution and the usurping and/or alienating the sole and exclusive right of granting
pardon, vested in the President, and the violation of international laws and treaties in relation
to money laundering and financing of terrorists and terrorist activities, had required that Act
No. 10 of 2003 be repealed.
g) The 12th Respondent is the Hon. Attorney General.
4. In terms of Articles 53 and/or 61 and/or 165, the 1st to 12th Respondents being holders of public
office are bound to faithfully perform and discharge the functions of such public office in
accordance with the Constitution and the law, and are bound to be faithful to the Republic of Sri
Lanka and uphold and defend the Constitution, under and in terms of the solemn official oath /
affirmation taken in terms of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution; and in addition, the 9th and
10th Respondents as Members of Parliament are further bound to uphold and defend the
Constitution in terms of Article 63 of the Constitution.
3
5. a) Act No. 10 of 2003 specifically provided, for “declarations” to made by “declarents” under
Section 2 thereof to the 1st Respondent on or before 30.6.2003 for such “declarents” to be
entitled to claim amnesty / indemnity / immunity / pardon, etc., as provided for in Act No. 10 of
2003.

b) The main empowering provisions for making “declarations” to the 1st Respondent and the 1st
Respondent issuing “acknowledgements in writing” therefor and the consequential affording of
such amnesty / indemnity / immunity / pardon, etc., lapsed on 30.6.2003.

6. The 8th Respondent, acting at the instance of the 9th Respondent, published Newspaper Notices on
or about 30.6.2003 notifying the public that the Cabinet of Ministers had decided to introduce in
Parliament necessary amending legislation to extend the final date for the making of such
“declarations” under Act No. 10 of 2003 from 30.6.2003 to 15.8.2003.

True copies of English and Sinhala Notices so published in the Newspapers are
annexed hereto marked “X1(a)” and “X1(b)”, respectively, and pleaded as part
and parcel hereof

7. a) A Bill titled - “Inland Revenue (Special Provisions) (Amendment) - a BILL to Amend the Inland
Revenue (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 2003” (hereinafter referred to as the “Amending
Bill”) was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on 25.7.2003 and passed by Parliament by a
simple majority on 21.8.2003, with 98 votes in favour and 67 votes against.

b) The Amending Bill sought to amend Act No. 10 of 2003 specifying the final date for the making
of such “declarations” by “declarents” to the 1st Respondent from 30.6.2003 to 15.8.2003.

c) At the Committee Stage of Parliament on 21.8.2003, the said final date of 15.8.2003 in the
Amending Bill was replaced to read 31.8.2003.

d) The 9th Respondent in moving the 2nd reading of the Amending Bill in Parliament on 21.8.2003 is
reported to have, inter-alia, stated thus as per the Hansard;

“Now that the Law has been fully approved as being constitutionally valid by
the Supreme Court an extended date is requested to enable them to submit the
declarations” (Emphasis added) - Hansard Column 2429 Highlighted

“Nor is it correct to state that the law detracts from the President’s powers of
granting pardons under the Constitution. The Constitution vests in the President the
authority to grant a pardon or a remission of a penalty of an offender convicted for
any offence by a Court. The present law permits only the withdrawal of
pending cases, that is; cases, which have not proceeded to conviction by Court
of the offender, there is therefore no conflict with the President’s powers.”
(Emphasis added) - Hansard Column 2430 Highlighted

“As I mentioned, the advantage is, we will have at least, 45,000 more tax files ….
(Emphasis added)” - Hansard Column 2486 Highlighted

True copies of the Amending Bill and the Hansard Columns 2429 to 2489 of
21.8.2003 are annexed hereto marked “X2(a)” and “X2(b)” respectively, and
pleaded as part and parcel hereof

4
 e) The Petitioner respectfully states that the aforesaid Statements made by the 9th Respondent are
incorrect, false and misleading.

8. a) The Petitioner reliably understands that in terms of Article 79 of the Constitution, the Hon.
Speaker has not yet endorsed his Certificate on the said Amending Bill, certifying that it had
been “duly passed by Parliament” and therefore the Petitioner is advised that the said Amending
Bill has not yet become law.

b) In the given circumstances,

h) the 1st Respondent was not statutorily authorized / empowered to have received
“declarations” from “declarents”, and issued “acknowledgements in writing” therefor to
“declarents” between the dates 1.7.2003 and 31.8.2003, and

ii) the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th and/or 6th and/or 8th and/or 9th and/or 12th
Respondents were not statutorily authorized / empowered to grant any amnesty /
indemnity/ immunity / pardon, etc., in respect of “declarents”, who had made
“declarations” to the 1st Respondent between the dates 1.7.2003 and 31.8.2003.

c) The Amending Bill becomes law only on the date of the said Certification by the Speaker and its
applicability as law is prospective, thereby rendering ab-initio null and void and of no force or
avail in law all acts, deeds, matters and things, whatsoever, done and performed by the 1st and/or
2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th and/or 6th and/or 8th and/or 9th and/or 12th Respondents in
respect of “declarations” that had been made by “declarents” to the 1st Respondent between
1.7.2003 and 31.8.2003.

9. a) A retrospective enactment for an Act to be deemed to have come into force on a prior date has
to be expressly so stated, as in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution – vide Article 3 thereof –
“The provisions of Section 2 of this Act shall be deemed for all purposes, to have come into force
upon the commencement of the Constitution, and accordingly, …”.
b) Section 11 of Act No. 10 of 2003, itself, has a “deeming clause” where “declarations” made under
the previous Inland Revenue (Special Provisions) Act No. 7 of 2002, which was repealed by Act
No. 10 of 2003, were to be considered as if such “declarations” were made under Section 2 of Act
No. 10 of 2003.

c) Section 2 of the Urban Development Authority (Special Provisions) Act No.44 of 1984 is another
example of specific provision in an enacted law for validation of acts previously done.
10. a) The 12th Respondent in his Written Submissions, at paragraph 17 thereof, tendered to the
Supreme Court on 12.8.2003 in Petitioner’s S.C. (SD) Application No. 20/2003, inter-alia, stated
thus –

“Although the time period for making the declaration under Section 2
expired on 30.6.2003, the declarations made in terms of Section 2 were
continuously processed and are still being processed, beyond 30.6.2003”.
(Reference being to Section 2 of Act No. 10 of 2003).(Emphasis added)
b) In the aforesaid Written Submissions dated 12.8.2003 at paragraph 30 and 31 thereof , inter-alia,
the 12th Respondent contended, that a “fine is not a conviction”, and that granting pardon under
Article 34 of the Constitution is only in respect of “convictions”, and that the power conferred
on the President to grant pardon in terms of the Article 34 of Constitution is not exclusive, and
that the power to grant pardon is an “executive function”, which could also be granted by
“relevant authorities” referred to in the principal enactment. [Emphasis added]
5
 A certified copy of the said Written Submissions of the 12th Respondent dated
12.8.2003 is annexed hereto marked “X3” and pleaded as part and parcel
hereof.

c) Regulations (one undated and the other dated 15.7.2003, both unsigned, not yet Gazetted) stated
to have been made by the 9th Respondent under Act No. 10 of 2003 have been circulated to the
Officers of the Department of Inland Revenue. These Regulations specifically include immunities
to be granted even after convictions in courts, where appeals have been made to superior courts,
including sentences of imprisonment.

d) One of the so called “Regulations” stipulates that –

“Where it would appear to any Authority that a declarent has committed a serious
violation of the relevant law and the immunity or the privileges under this Act may
not be granted to such declarent he may refer such cases to the Minister of Finance
for a ruling” [Emphasis added]

The 9th Respondent had thereby circumvented the 12th Respondent and has empowered himself to
give a ruling in cases of “serious violation”, some of which cases could be those of the 9th
Respondent’s former Clients and matters that he, himself, had dealt with as a Lawyer, prior to
assuming office as Minister.

e) The “Authorities” referred to in the above Regulations are the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th
Respondents, one or more of whom, the Petitioner verily believes, had been instructed by the 8th
Respondent / or a person holding under him, to consult the Ministry of Finance, and not the 12th
Respondent, on any matter pertaining to or arising from the application of the provisions of Act
No. 10 of 2003.

True copies of the said Regulations are annexed hereto marked “X4(a)” and
“X4(b)”, respectively and pleaded as part and parcel hereof

11. The Petitioner is advised that,

a) some of the Offences under the Statutes [Customs Ordinance, Exchange Control Act, Import &
Export Control Act, Excise Ordinance and Excise (Special Provisions) Act] scheduled to Act No.
10 of 2003, include scheduled non-bailable Offences under the Criminal Procedure Code,
punishable under the Penal Code, for which amnesty/ indemnity /immunity/pardon from
investigations/prosecutions/convictions cannot be granted under the guise, ruse and “smoke
screen” of an “Inland Revenue Bill”.

b) “declarents” under Act No. 10 of 2003 cannot be granted “immunity” in respect of any criminal
act connected with any “declaration” made by such “declarents” to the 1st Respondent under Act
No. 10 of 2003, thereby frustrating the Rule of Law, and alienating the judicial power of the
People.

12. a) The Petitioner on 25.6.2003 addressed a Letter to the Hon. Prime Minister pointing out, inter-
alia, the obnoxious and unconscionable features and the unconstitutionalities, including the
incongruities in the provisions of the Act No. 10 of 2003, forwarding copies thereof to Her
Excellency the President, the 12th Respondent and certain others.

b) Among those certain others to whom the Petitioner forwarded copies of aforesaid Letter dated
25.6.2003 were the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents.

6
 c) The Petitioner in the public interest urged the aforesaid Respondents to concur with / refute /
controvert any of the facts set out in the Petitioner’s aforesaid Letter dated 25.6.2003, but none
of the Respondents have responded to date.

d) The Petitioner only received on or about 25.7.2003, a copy of a Letter dated 30.6.2003 from the
Asst. Secretary (for the Secretary) to the Hon. Prime Minister addressed to the 8th Respondent
requesting him to take necessary action regarding the matters referred to in the Petitioner’s
aforesaid Letter and to send a reply to the Petitioner, with a copy to the Hon. Prime Minister, in
order that it may apprise the Hon. Prime Minister accordingly.

e) However, no reply as aforesaid has been received to date by the Petitioner from the 8th
Respondent; nor is the Petitioner aware, as to what actions had been taken by the 8th Respondent.

True copies of the Petitioner’s Letter dated 25.6.2003 addressed to the Hon
Prime Minister and Letter dated 30.6.2003 of the Asst. Secretary (for the
Secretary) to the Prime Minister addressed to the 8th Respondent are annexed
hereto marked “X5(a)” and “X5(b)” respectively, and pleaded as part and
parcel hereof.

13. a) Her Excellency the President consequently in or about July 2003 presenting a Note on Act No. 10
of 2003 to the Cabinet of Ministers, inter-alia, pointing out the violation of Article 34 of the
Constitution and the usurping and/or alienating of the sole and exclusive right of “granting
pardon” vested in the President, and the violation of international laws and treaties in relation
to money laundering and financing of terrorists and terrorist activities had required that Act
No. 10 of 2003 be repealed.

b) The Governors of provinces were vested with power to “grant pardon” for Offences under the
Statutes of a Provincial Council, without prejudice to the powers of the President, by Article 4 of
the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, incorporating Chapter XVII A, specifically Article
154 B (9).

c) The 6th Amendment to the Constitution, by Article 3 thereof, incorporating Article 157 A (1)
stipulates that no person shall directly or indirectly in or outside Sri Lanka, support, espouse,
promote, finance, encourage or advocate the establishment of a separate State within the territory
of Sri Lanka. (Emphasis added).
d) Consequent to the United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1373 of 28.9.2001,
Regulations Gazetted by the Government on 16.10.2001 under the United Nations Act No. 45 of
1968, mandated that funds related to terrorism and terrorist activities be frozen and seized by
the Government.

e) Article 27 (15) of the Constitution stipulates that the State shall endeavour to foster respect for
international law and treaty obligations in dealings among nations.

14. a) Article 82 (1) of the Constitution stipulates that –

“No Bill for the amendment of any provision of the Constitution shall
be placed on the Order Paper of Parliament, unless the provisions to
be repealed, altered or added, and consequential amendments, if
any, are expressly specified in the Bill and is described in the long
title thereof as being an Act for the amendment of the Constitution”.
(Emphasis added)

7
 b) Article 82 (3) of the Constitution stipulates that –
“If in the opinion of the Speaker, a Bill does not comply with the
requirements of the paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) of this Article, he
shall direct that such Bill be not proceeded with unless it is amended
so as to comply with those requirements” (Emphasis added).

c) Article 82 (6) of the Constitution stipulates that –

“No provision in any law shall, or shall be deemed to, amend, repeal
or replace the Constitution or any provisions thereof, or be so
interpreted or construed, unless enacted in accordance with the
requirements of the preceding provisions of this Article.”

d) Article 84 (3) of the Constitution stipulates that –

“Such a Bill when enacted into law, shall not, and shall not be
deemed to, amend, repeal or replace the Constitution or any
provision thereof, and shall not be so interpreted or construed, and
may thereafter be repealed by a majority of the votes of the Members
present and voting” (Emphasis added)

15. a) In terms of the Constitution, more particularly Articles 79 and 82 (3), it is the onus of the 10th
Respondent to ensure that Bills presented to Parliament are in conformity with the constitutional
mandates, procedures, limitations and prohibitions, and are within the scope of the “limited
legislative power” conferred by the People on Parliament to be exercised in trust on their
behalf, without the alienation of their sovereignty, which is inalienable (Article 3, read with
Article 4 (a) of the Constitution), prior to Bills being placed on the Order Paper of Parliament
and/or proceeded with and/or certified.

b) Article 77 (1) of the Constitution stipulates that –

“It is the duty of the Attorney-General to examine every Bill for any
contravention of the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article
82 and for any provision which cannot be validly passed except by
the special majority prescribed by the Constitution; …”

16. The Petitioner further states that;

a) Act No. 10 of 2003 does not grant amnesty / indemnity / immunity / pardon from investigation
and prosecution for Bribery & Corruption by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of
Bribery or Corruption, established under Act No. 19 of 1994, of which Commission the 7th
Respondent is the Chairman.
b) Nor does Act No. 10 of 2003 grant amnesty / indemnity / immunity / pardon for those persons,
who come under purview of the Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Law No. 1 of 1975, as
amended by Act No. 74 of 1988, which is to be enforced, among others, by the 1st, 5th, 7th and the
12th Respondents.

c) The Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Law No. 1 of 1975, as amended by Act No. 74 of
1988, is not a scheduled Statute to Act No. 10 of 2003.

d) Hence public servants coming under the purview of the Bribery Act, amended by Act No. 20 of
1994, and those persons coming under the purview of the Declaration of Assets and Liabilities
Law No. 1 of 1975, amended by Act No. 74 of 1988 cannot seek refuge of amnesty /
indemnity/ immunity / pardon under the provisions of Act No. 10 of 2003.

8
17. a) Act No. 19 of 1994 to establish the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or
Corruptions, of which the 7th Respondent is the present Chairman, was passed unanimously in
Parliament in October 1994.

b) On that occasion the then Minister of Justice & Constitutional Affairs in presenting the relevant
Bill to Parliament, inter-alia, stated:

"Hon. Deputy Speaker, you are aware that there is a great resentment and hatred in
our country concerning bribery and corruption. Therefore, it is the duty of the
government to formulate laws in conformity with public opinion."

"Apart from the financial implications, there is also the question of an overweening
sense of cynicism. Discerning, discriminating, thinking people in our country have
expressed profound dissatisfaction with the extent to which corruption and bribery
have taken root in our country. If this spirit of cynicism is not addressed there is a
definite danger to the stability and tranquility of political and social institution in our
country. That is why the government was convinced that there should be a vigorous
response to the issues of bribery and corruption".

c) Endorsing the above Bill in Parliament, the Prime Minister, as the then Leader of the Opposition,
inter-alia, stated :

“In fact, the whole question of bribery and corruption raises many fundamental
questions in a democratic society. We have all got to recognise that corruption is a
cancer of democracy, as one of the biggest problems that we faced, when elected
representatives and officials of the Government who are also public servants - when
their decisions are effected not by matters of political consideration but by pecuniary
gains and financial gain".

d) The above clearly demonstrated the intention of the legislature in unanimously passing the
enactment of the aforesaid law to deal with Bribery & Corruption.

True copies of the Hansard Columns 280 to 288 of 4.10.1994 and Hansard Columns
401 to 412 of 5.10.1994 are annexed hereto marked “X6(a)” and “X6(b)”
respectively, and pleaded as part and parcel hereof

18. The Petitioner states that upon representations he had made to the President of the World Bank, the
Petitioner received Letter dated 25.9.2002 from the World Bank, Country Program Co-ordinator
for Sri Lanka, who had written on the instructions of the World Bank President, stating:

“As noted in your letter, the senior management of the World Bank, as well as the
entire staff of the institution, take the issues of fraud and corruption very seriously.
Furthermore, the community of developing countries acknowledged this issue at the
meeting held in Monterrey earlier this year. Specifically, developing countries in
Monterrey said “We understand that if there is to be development assistance, then we
have to put our house in order. We have to deal with building our human capacity, we
have to deal with legal systems that protect rights, we have to have financial systems
that are transparent, and we must fight corruption.” (Emphasis added)

A true copy of the said Letter dated 25.9.2002 addressed to the Petitioner from
the World Bank is annexed hereto marked “X7” and pleaded as part and parcel
hereof

9
19. The foregoing circumstances warrant the due performance by the Petitioner of his duties and
obligations in terms of Article 28 of the Constitution and to invoke the jurisdiction vested in Your
Ladyship’s Court in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic
of Sri Lanka and seek from Your Ladyship’s Court the following Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition
and Mandamus and Interim Orders:

a) a Writ of Certiorari quashing all acts, deeds matters and things, whatsoever, done and
performed by the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th and/or 6th and/or 8th and/or 9th
and/or 12th Respondents and/or their authorized officers, agents, servants and all those
holding under them, under Act No. 10 of 2003, on “declarations” made by “declarents” to the
1st Respondent between 1.7.2003 and 31.8.2003,

b) a Writ of Certiorari quashing any amnesty / indemnity / immunity / pardon from

investigations / prosecutions / convictions granted by the 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th
and/or 6th and/or 8th and/or 9th and/or 12th Respondents and/or their authorized officers,
agents, servants and all those holding under them, to “declarants”, who have made
“declarations” to the 1st Respondent under Act No. 10 of 2003,

i. which could only have been granted by Her Excellency the President in terms of Article
34 of the Constitution,

ii. in respect of any offences punishable under the Penal Code,

iii. in respect of any offences of money laundering, pirating, narcotics and drug peddling,
illicit brewing, bootlegging, human trafficking and financing of terrorists and terrorists
activities, and such other and further offences, as may be determined by the 12th
Respondent,

c) a Writ of Prohibition restraining the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th and/or 6th
and/or 8th and/or 9th and/or 12th Respondents and/or their authorized officers, agents, servants
and all those holding under them, from granting amnesty / indemnity / immunity / pardon
under Act No. 10 of 2003 to “declarents”, who have made “declarations” to the 1st
Respondent between 1.7.2003 and 31.8.2003

d) a Writ of Prohibition restraining the 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th and/or 6th and/or 8th
and/or 9th and/or 12th Respondents and/or their authorized officers, agents, servants and all
those holding under them, from granting any amnesty / indemnity / immunity / pardon from
investigations / prosecutions / convictions to “declarants”, who have made “declarations” to
the1st Respondent under Act No. 10 of 2003,

i. which could only be granted by Her Excellency the President in terms of Article 34 of
the Constitution,

ii. in respect of any offences punishable under the Penal Code,

iii. in respect of any offences of money laundering, pirating, narcotics and drug peddling,
illicit brewing, bootlegging, human trafficking and financing of terrorists and terrorists
activities, and such other and further offences as may be determined by the 12th
Respondent,

10
 e) a Writ of Mandamus compelling the 1st Respondent to forward to the 5th and/or 7th and/or 12th
Respondents “declarations” made to the 1st Respondent under Act No. 10 of 2003, by public
servants, who have held such office within the last 10-years prior to the date of coming into
effect of Act No. 10 of 2003, coming under the purview of the Bribery Act, amended by Act
No. 20 of 1994, and those persons who have held such office within the last 10-years prior to
the date of coming into effect of Act No. 10 of 2003 coming under the purview of the
Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Law No. 1 of 1975, amended by Act No. 74 of 1988,
and compelling the 7th Respondent to take any warranted action in terms of the law in respect
of the said “declarants”.
f) an interim order restraining the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th and/or 6th and/or
8th and/or 9th and/or 12th Respondents and/or their authorized officers, agents, servants and all
those holding under them, from granting amnesty / indemnity / immunity / pardon under Act
No. 10 of 2003 to “declarents”, who have made “declarations” to the 1st Respondent between
1.7.2003 and 31.8.2003
g) an interim order restraining the 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th and/or 6th and/or 8th and/or
9th and/or 12th Respondents and/or their authorized officers, agents, servants and all those
holding under them, from granting any amnesty / indemnity / immunity / pardon from
investigations / prosecutions / convictions to “declarants”, who have made “declarations” to
the 1st Respondent under Act No. 10 of 2003,
i. which could only have been granted by Her Excellency the President in terms of Article
34 of the Constitution,
ii. in respect of any offences punishable under the Penal Code,

iii. in respect of any offences of money laundering, pirating, narcotics and drug peddling,
illicit brewing, bootlegging, human trafficking and financing of terrorists and terrorists
activities, and such other and further offences, as may be determined by the 12th
Respondent,
20. The Petitioner has not invoked the jurisdiction of Your Ladyship’s Court previously in respect of
this matter.

21. By way of disclosure the Petitioner states that;

a) the Petitioner has filed in the Supreme Court S.C./FR Application No. 194/2003 against
several Respondents, including the above Respondents, in connection with the enactment
of Act No. 10 of 2003, which Application is pending.

b) the Petitioner has filed in the Supreme Court S.C. (SD) Application No. 11/2003 and the
Supreme Court upholding the preliminary objections raised by the 12th Respondent, held
that the Supreme Court has to necessarily uphold the preliminary objections raised by the
12th Respondent and declined to exercise jurisdiction to determine upon the
constitutionality of the provisions of Act No. 10 of 2003.
c) the Petitioner has also filed in the Supreme Court S.C. (SD) Application No. 20/2003 and
the 12th Respondent once again raising preliminary objections, a 3-Member Bench of the
Supreme Court determined that the amending of the date by the Amending Bill is
consistent with the Constitution, without having examined the constitutionality of the
provisions of Act No. 10 of 2003 (some of which had lapsed on 30.6.2003), and which
were being enacted into law to be applicable after 1.7.2003 to be extended to a new group
of persons, distinct and different from the first group of persons.
11
 in the foregoing circumstances, Petitioner has filed in the Supreme Court on 12.9.2003 an
Application for the aforesaid matter to be re-examined by a fuller Bench of the Supreme
Court for the reasons set out in the Petition.
A true copy of the Petition in the above Application, without the
Documents marked thereto is annexed hereto marked “X8” and pleaded
as part and parcel hereof
d) In support of the averments contained and the stance taken by the Petitioner in his
said Application (“X8”), the Petitioner tendered by his Motion dated 25.9.2003 to the
Supreme Court, the Determinations made by a 5-Member Bench of the Supreme Court
(announced by the Hon. Speaker of Parliament on 23.9.2003) in Applications SC (SD)
Nos. 22/2003 and 23/2003, wherein the Petitioner appeared in person as an Intervenient-
Petitioner.
The 5-Member Bench of the Supreme Court in the said Determinations have examined
and determined upon the inconsistency of the provisions of a principal enactment in
circumstances of they being extended to a “new group of persons” / “new transactions”
and has further, inter-alia, determined that an Amendment cannot be viewed in isolation,
and that an Amendment certainly cannot derive a stamp of constitutionality from an
Act that is in force, and that the Court will, inter-alia, strike down unconscionable law,
and that the law certainly cannot strengthen the strong and weaken, the weak.

True copies of the Motion dated 25.9.2003 and the said 2 Determinations
are annexed hereto marked “X9”, “X10(a)” and “X10(b)”, respectively
and pleaded as part and parcel hereof.

e) Accordingly, the Petitioner states that the constitutionality of the provisions of Act
No. 10 of 2003 has not been examined and determined upon by the Supreme Court.

22. An Affidavit of the Petitioner in support of the averments herein contained is appended hereto.

WHEREFORE the Petitioner respectfully prays that Your Ladyships’ Court be pleased to:

a) issue Notices on the Respondents,

b) issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing all acts, deeds matters and things, whatsoever, done and
performed by the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th and/or 6th and/or 8th and/or 9th
and/or 12th Respondents and/or their authorized officers, agents, servants and all those holding
under them, under Act No. 10 of 2003, on “declarations” made by “declarents” to the 1st
Respondent between 1.7.2003 and 31.8.2003,

c) issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing any amnesty / indemnity / immunity / pardon from
investigations / prosecutions / convictions granted by the 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th and/or
6th and/or 8th and/or 9th and/or 12th Respondents and/or their authorized officers, agents, servants
and all those holding under them, to “declarants”, who have made “declarations” to the 1st
Respondent under Act No. 10 of 2003,

i. which could only have been granted by Her Excellency the President in terms of
Article 34 of the Constitution,

ii. in respect of any offences punishable under the Penal Code,

12
 iii. in respect of any offences of money laundering, pirating, narcotics and drug peddling,
illicit brewing, bootlegging, human trafficking and financing of terrorists and
terrorists activities, and such other and further offences, as may be determined by the
12th Respondent,

d) issue a Writ of Prohibition restraining the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th and/or 6th
and/or 8th and/or 9th and/or 12th Respondents and/or their authorized officers, agents, servants and
all those holding under them, from granting amnesty / indemnity / immunity / pardon under Act
No. 10 of 2003 to “declarents”, who have made “declarations” to the 1st Respondent between
1.7.2003 and 31.8.2003

e) issue a Writ of Prohibition restraining the 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th and/or 6th and/or 8th
and/or 9th and/or 12th Respondents and/or their authorized officers, agents, servants and all those
holding under them, from granting any amnesty / indemnity / immunity / pardon from
investigations / prosecutions / convictions to “declarants”, who have made “declarations” to the
1st Respondent under Act No. 10 of 2003,

i. which could only have been granted by Her Excellency the President in terms of Article
34 of the Constitution,

ii. in respect of any offences punishable under the Penal Code,

iii. in respect of any offences of money laundering, pirating, narcotics and drug peddling,
illicit brewing, bootlegging, human trafficking and financing of terrorists and terrorists
activities, and such other and further offences, as may be determined by the 12th
Respondent,

f) issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling the 1st Respondent to forward to the 5th and/or 7th and/or
12th Respondents “declarations” made to the 1st Respondent under Act No. 10 of 2003, by public
servants, who have held such office within the last 10-years prior to the date of coming into effect
of Act No. 10 of 2003, coming under the purview of the Bribery Act, amended by Act No. 20 of
1994, and those persons who have held such office within the last 10-years prior to the date of
coming into effect of Act No. 10 of 2003 coming under the purview of the Declaration of Assets
and Liabilities Law No. 1 of 1975, amended by Act No. 74 of 1988, and compelling the 7th
Respondent to take any warranted action in terms of the law in respect of the said “declarants”.

g) issue an interim order restraining the 1st and/or 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th and/or 6th and/or
8th and/or 9th and/or 12th Respondents and/or their authorized officers, agents, servants and all
those holding under them, from granting amnesty / indemnity / immunity / pardon under Act No.
10 of 2003 to “declarents”, who have made “declarations” to the 1st Respondent between
1.7.2003 and 31.8.2003

h) issue an interim order restraining the 2nd and/or 3rd and/or 4th and/or 5th and/or 6th and/or 8th and/or
9th and/or 12th Respondents and/or their authorized officers, agents, servants and all those holding
under them, from granting any amnesty / indemnity / immunity / pardon from investigations /
prosecutions / convictions to “declarants”, who have made “declarations” to the 1st Respondent
under Act No. 10 of 2003,

i. which could only have been granted by Her Excellency the President in terms of Article
34 of the Constitution,

ii. in respect of any offences punishable under the Penal Code,

13
 iii. in respect of any offences of money laundering, pirating, narcotics and drug peddling,
illicit brewing, bootlegging, human trafficking and financing of terrorists and terrorists
activities, and such other and further offences, as may be determined by the 12th
Respondent,

i) grant costs; and

j) such other and further reliefs as to Your Ladyship’s Court shall seem meet

Attorneys-at-Law for the Petitioner

Settled by:

Viran Corea Esqr.,

Vindhya Weerasekera Esqr.,
M.A. Sumanthiran Esqr.,
Attorneys-at-Law

14