The petitioners have filed a special motion before the Supreme Court against the government party being denied the opportunity to respond orally in the special petition hearing challenging the 22nd Amendment Bill.
These points have been emphasized in the relevant motion submitted to the Supreme Court by the lawyers appearing for the petitioners, naming the Attorney General as the respondent.
In the relevant motion, the petitioners point out that before the commencement of this case, they had initially requested that it be heard before a full bench comprising all the judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice.
The petitioners state that this step was necessary to avoid any conflict of interest or appearance of such between the Chief Justice and the judges, as well as to completely rule out any possible opinion that only a specific group of judges had been selected to hear the case.
This request was also supported by lawyers appearing for most of the other petitioners, but the relevant bench rejected the request without giving any reason, the motion paper states.
Thereafter, the hearing was held until 10.30 pm on September 01, and the hearing resumed at 10.00 am on September 02.
The petitioners state that the petitioners had to present their arguments first because the Solicitor General, who appeared for the government, had informed them that he would present his arguments after the petitioners, and then the intervening parties who presented their arguments in favor of the bill were given the opportunity.
The motion paper also states that the bench had pointed out that time should be well managed for the petitioners, the intervening parties, the Solicitor General and the petitioners’ replies, etc.
The petitioners point out that the Solicitor General justified the Act in a context where no policy document related to the Act had been provided to the petitioners, and the petitioners continued their arguments until 5.30 pm on September 02.
The petitioners state that although the petitioners’ lawyers requested that they be given the opportunity to exercise their right to respond orally immediately after the Solicitor General’s arguments were concluded, the petitioners state that the Supreme Court rejected that request.
The petitioners state that the petitioners thereby lost the opportunity to respond orally to the arguments presented by the Solicitor General and to clarify certain questions asked of the Solicitor General by the judges.
The motion paper has indicated that it was only through such oral responses that the government’s arguments could have been effectively responded to.
Due to this situation, the petitioner lawyers have informed the Supreme Court through their motion paper that they will completely refrain from filing the written submissions that were to be submitted to the court at the end of the trial.
( With the inputs from Satahana Sinhala site)