By Dilrukshi Handunnetti 

Joint opposition political parties have petitioned the Supreme Court challenging a parliamentary bill tabled in the House on August 6 on the basis that it is inconsistent with the constitution and a violation of Article 14 that guarantees freedom of association.

The second batch of petitioners include the United National Party, government coalition partner Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and SLFP (M) Convenor Mangala Samaraweera.

The draft bill was also challenged on Wednesday by three general secretaries of political parties — Hassan Ali of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC), Mavai Senathiraja of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and Gajandrakumar Ponnambalam of All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC).

The bill is entitled as an act to amend the Parliamentary Election Act No 01 of 1981 and presented to parliament on August 6.

Ethnic identification

The controversial bill prohibits the registration of political parties with religious or ethnic identification and those that are already registered with such names are required to be re-registered under different names within a period of one year.

But petitioners allege that political parties with a main objective of ensuring the welfare of a particular community ought to be permitted to function with the name that signifies a language based community or religion.

The said provision stipulates “a political party shall not be entitled to be treated as a recognised party if its name signifies any religious community or ethnic group.”

According to the proposed bill, political parties are also required to hold an annual general meeting once a year or as specified by the party constitution, to submit a copy of the annual statement of accounts audited by a registered auditor and to have such statements also published in newspapers in the three languages. Such statements have to be furnished to the Elections Commission by the secretary of the party within 60 days after the end of every financial year.

Provocative requirement

Besides, the proposed bill requires what some political parties consider too provocative a requirement, though practiced in some of the leading democracies.

According to the bill, statements of accounts by political parties should also include details of donations in cash or kind received by the said political party.

Further, such a statement should also contain details of donations in cash or kind received by the political party including names of donors, the nature of donations and where the donation consists of money, the amount in rupees and if the cash donation is made from abroad, the local equivalent of the donated amount in foreign currency. 

The bill also seeks to confer an important right upon every citizen — on payment of a prescribed fee to have the right to obtain a copy of such statement of accounts including funding details of a respective party.

Importantly, Section 9 of the proposed bill deals with cessation of recognition of a political party.

Under this, it is explained that where any political party which is entitled to be treated as a recognised political party for the purpose of elections shall cease to be so entitled if not one single candidate of such a party is nominated for two consecutive parliamentary general elections.

Undue interference

Meanwhile, the petitioners have alleged the requirement of disallowing registration for political parties with an ethnic or religious identity, the need for submission of annual accounts to the Commissioner of Elections and the requirement to disclose individuals and institutions funding political parties as ‘undue interference.’

The political parties now poised to challenge the proposed Parliamentary Elections Amendment Bill also call for not just a two thirds majority in the House but also the bill to be submitted to a referendum before it is made into law.

According to UNP General Secretary, Tissa Attanayake it is unthinkable that legislation could be designed to reduce the scope of political parties and to force disclosures that may not be necessary.

“This bill is all about arbitrary conduct and compulsion. We will not only challenge it but will build a campaign against it. There is too much of interference even on the face of it,” Attanayake said.

Speaking to The Sunday Leader, SLFP (M) Convenor, Mangala Samaraweera said that he petitioned the Supreme Court to oppose the particular provision that stipulates a political party which has not fielded a single candidate for two consecutive parliamentary general elections having its party registration cancelled.

Two winning coalitions

“Under this stipulation, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), one of the oldest political parties in Sri Lanka is faced with the strong possibility of being de-registered. I did it for the party that I represent but now in deep slumber,” said Samaraweera.

Since 1989, the SLFP has not contested any election with its original party symbol, the hand. The SLFP has formed two winning coalitions and contested successfully with the chair as its common symbol and subsequently, under the betel leaf.

 He said the delisting possibility should be viewed by all SLFP members with some concern. “As the main constituent party of the ruling UPFA alliance, the SLFP too has not had candidates contesting two consecutive general elections under its original symbol. This is also outrageous and shocking that a leader who calls himself the SLFP leader has allowed this to happen. It only proves one point beyond doubt that there is a conspiracy to destroy the SLFP from within,” he added.

He also noted that the provisions were unkind to smaller political parties that may have certain registrations that appeal to particular localities.  “In short, it is an attempt to restrict political parties and to limit their democratic framework of the people,” he said.

General Secretary, Tamil National Alliance (TNA), Mavai Senathirajah said the bill was an attempt to destroy identities as well as wipe out diversity. “The real reasons are well understood,” he noted.

In the meantime, parliament has suspended working on the said bill at the Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reforms as the matter in now before court.