hindu,  Sat Jan 30 19:26:40 EST 2010

    COLOMBO: Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa has sought the opinion of the Supreme Court on when his second innings in office commences.

Full Story


_________________
- The Academic

Hi MAC,

Looks like the issue is not settled yet.

India's The Hindu says (above):

Quote:

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa has sought the opinion of the Supreme Court on when his second innings in office commences.

Sri Lanka's Sunday Times says:

Quote:

President Mahinda Rajapaksa will take oaths in Kandy for his second term as head of state and head of government on Independence Day February 4, he told the Malwatte and Asgiriya Mahanayake Theras yesterday.

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/100131/News/nws_05.html

And, some interesting comments from Rohan Edrisinha of the Centre for Policy Alternatives:

http://vimeo.com/9047863

MAC, has there been any report in the government owned media?


_________________
"I do not suffer from Autism, but I do suffer from the way you treat me." -Tyler Durdin

Somebody mentioned that the constitution allows MR to take oath Nov 2010 thus he can extend his term by 7 years.

kkk123 wrote:

Hi MAC,

Looks like the issue is not settled yet.

MAC, has there been any report in the government owned media?

Hi kkk

To answer your question, I did hear Mr. Gomin Dayasiri’s opinion and it very much favored that the President would have lost almost 2years from his previous term. I also listen to a University Don (Legal side, sorry I forget his name, not very familiar to me either) who stated there will be a full 8 year period, and we also have an opinion that it could be 7 years if the term begins in Nov 2010.

I believe Hindu is predicting right that President would have sought the SC opinion.

We both knew that it is a legal matter that has to be addressed by the CJ & SC. Had late Mr. H L de Silva was alive his opinion here would have been immensely of value.


_________________
MAC1

This is idiotic. If SF had won, he would have had only six years. So MR cannot let the term be decided on who was the previous president. Greed for power is limitless.

Seven bench SC ruling today on President’s second term
This will bring all speculations to an end by this evening.

http://www.island.lk/2010/02/02/news7.html


_________________
MAC1

MAC thanks for reminding...

http://www.adaderana.lk/news.php?nid=7077



Last edited by Negombo on Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:07 pm; edited 2 times in total

Constitutional “expert” says, insulting the seven judge bench of SC, for its determination, “baduth hamduruwange naduth hamaduruwnage.... “


_________________
MAC1

Negombo wrote:

MAC thanks for reminding...

http://www.adaderana.lk/news.php?nid=7077

 Most Wellcome


_________________
MAC1

What if SF had won the election? Is he supposed to sit in the side line untill November 2010 take oaths?

Bman wrote:

What if SF had won the election? Is he supposed to sit in the side line untill November 2010 take oaths?

Quote:

Chapter VII, Article 31 Section 3(d):

The person declared elected as President at an election held under this paragraph shall, if such person –

(i)         is the President in office, hold office for a term of six years commencing on such date in the year in which that election is held (being a date after such election) or in the succeeding year, as corresponds to the date on which his first term of office commenced, whichever date is earlier ; or

(ii)        is not the President in office, hold office for a term of six years commencing on the date on which the result of such election is declared

Uncle_Henry wrote:

Bman wrote:

What if SF had won the election? Is he supposed to sit in the side line untill November 2010 take oaths?

Quote:

(i)         is the President in office, hold office for a term of six years commencing on such date in the year in which that election is held (being a date after such election) or in the succeeding year, as corresponds to the date on which his first term of office commenced, whichever date is earlier ; or

Thanks..

As per above MR could commence his second term on 31st Dec 2010!

Bman wrote:

As per above MR could commence his second term on 31st Dec 2010!

No. His first term commenced on 19 November 2005. Therefore his second term starts on 19 November 2010. MR lost 1 year from his first term.

Quote:

is the President in office, hold office for a term of six years commencing on such date in the year in which that election is held (being a date after such election) or in the succeeding year, as corresponds to the date on which his first term of office commenced, whichever date is earlier ; or

Uncle_Henry wrote:

Bman wrote:

As per above MR could commence his second term on 31st Dec 2010!

No. His first term commenced on 19 November 2005. Therefore his second term starts on 19 November 2010. MR lost 1 year from his first term.

Quote:

is the President in office, hold office for a term of six years commencing on such date in the year in which that election is held (being a date after such election) or in the succeeding year, as corresponds to the date on which his first term of office commenced, whichever date is earlier ; or

I thought the applicable part is the bold underlined, MR was elected on 26th Jan 2010, so he can commence any date in 2010, 31st Dec being last date.

The part you highlighted will only apply if election was held in 31st Dec!!
If election was held on 31st Dec 2009, then his second term can begin any date in suceeding year which is 2010, before 19th Nov 2010 being the date first term commenced.

Did I miss somthing?

Learned judges took one whole day to discuss and come to a conclusion his second term starts on 19 November, corresponding to his first term start date.
After going through that line several times, it started making sense. Guess you should do the same