By Radhya Herath (Member of the Editorial Staff of The Court Reporter)
Court Refuses to Block BASL Election Over Withdrawal Controversy
The District Court yesterday (17.02.2025) refused to issue an enjoining order halting the BASL election, rejecting claims of irregularities over a candidate’s withdrawal. The court ruled that the withdrawal was voluntary and that no prima facie case had been established to justify intervention, affirming that the election, which is scheduled on 19th February, would proceed as planned.
The case was filed in Court No. 1 of the Colombo District Court by Attorney at law K.T. Emiliya Lilanthi de Silva (the Plaintiff), seeking a declaration that when a candidate in the BASL election withdraws or passes away, fresh nominations must be called if the candidate list is altered.
The dispute arose after Anura Meddegoda PC withdrew from the race, and the Returning Officer accepted his withdrawal. The Plaintiff contended that the name should not have been struck off from the polling card and that if it has been done so fresh nominations should be called. Thus, the Plaintiff sought an enjoining order from the Colombo District Court to prevent the BASL election from proceeding as scheduled without calling for fresh nominations.
The Plaintiff also in this case, had pleaded in her plaint that over the course of the 50 year history of the BASL, the presidency had been held by eminent senior attorneys and that attorneys of such caliber were elected as the President of the BASL as a matter of tradition and that it is of utmost importance that such tradition be sustained.
Upul Jayasuriya PC who appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff told Court that the BASL from its inception had been manned by attorneys of seniority and eminence including H.W.Jayawardene QC, A.C.Gooneratne QC, Eardley Perera PC and A.C (Bunty) De Zoysa PC and that only attorneys of such high standing were equipped with the experience to navigate the complexities involved with the post of Presidency. He stated that it is because of the commitment of such individuals the BASL is venerated today and hence such sacred traditions should be given its due regard.
Alluding to the legality of the matter, Mr.Ikram Mohamed PC, appearing in his personal capacity (10th Defendant), stated that the BASL constitution does not provide for the procedure to be adopted when a candidate withdraws his nomination. In the instant matter he stated that in such circumstances Mr. Maddegoda PC’s withdrawal should not have been accepted by the returning officer (the Solicitor General) and that in accordance with Rule (d) 1 of Schedule ‘B’ to the BASL Constitution fresh nominations should be called without proceeding for the election.
Mr.Ali Sabry PC, appearing on behalf of Mr.Rajeev Amarasuriya, the 01st Defendant, brought to the attention of Court that his client has fulfilled the criteria to contest for the post of Presidency in terms of Article 8.3 of the BASL constitution including the completion of 20 years as a member of the Bar and as a member of the Bar Council for 4 years. He stated that what matters is what has been prescribed in the BASL Constitution and any other considerations as argued by the Plaintiff are merely extraneous and irrelevant.
He further added that the withdrawal of Mr. Maddegoda PC has been done on his own accord and that neither the Plaintiff nor the Court cannot simply force a candidate to contest an election when he has unambiguously expressed his desire to not to do so. He submitted that it is unfortunate that some senior members of the profession have resorted to such action, lowering the esteem in which the BASL has been held for over 50 years.
Saliya Peiris PC appearing in his personal capacity indicated to Court that the Plaintiff has selectively named only certain former Presidents of the BASL and had failed to add him as a former President. This he said suggests that this action has been filed with an ulterior motive as a last minute attempt to stifle the conducting of the BASL election. He said that unlike other professional bodies the BASL has always sought to resolve issues amicably through internal channels and that it is regrettable that this purported issue of seniority has now come before a Court of Law.
Upon considering the submissions of all parties the District Court refused to issue an enjoining order against holding the BASL election. The Learned District Judge observed that the withdrawal of Mr. Maddegoda PC has been done by his own accord and that the Plaintiff has not adduced evidence to the contrary. He further observed that the Court cannot compel or question his withdrawal and that rule Rule (d) 1 of Schedule ‘B’ to the BASL Constitution is not applicable in the instant case. Thus he said that a prima facie case has not been made out by the Plaintiff for an enjoining order to be issued.
