Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva announces Supreme Court ruling on Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa - Global Banking & Finance Review
Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva addresses Parliament about the Supreme Court's ruling allowing President Mahinda Rajapaksa to seek a third term, amid constitutional changes in Sri Lanka. This image illustrates a pivotal moment in Sri Lankan politics and governance.
Top Stories

MINISTER: SRI LANKAN LEADER OK’D FOR 3RD CAMPAIGN

Published by Gbaf News

Posted on November 12, 2014

1 min read
Add as preferred source on Google

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (AP) – A Cabinet minister says Sri Lanka’s highest court has found no impediment to President Mahinda Rajapaksa seeking an unprecedented third term in office.

Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva announced the Supreme Court opinion in Parliament on Tuesday. The country’s constitution was changed to scrap a two-term limit. Opinion was divided over whether the change applied to Rajapaksa or would only apply to his successors.

Rajapaksa has said that he will announce a presidential election two years before the end of his second term.

Key Takeaways

  • Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court issued a favorable opinion allowing President Mahinda Rajapaksa to seek a third term.
  • The 18th Amendment scrapped the two-term limit, and the court found no legal barrier applying to Rajapaksa.
  • Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva announced the opinion in Parliament.
  • There was legal debate over whether the amendment applied retroactively to Rajapaksa’s eligibility.

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Supreme Court say regarding Rajapaksa’s third term?
It gave a favourable interpretation that there is no constitutional impediment for him to contest a third term under the amended constitution.
What constitutional change enabled this?
The 18th Amendment abolished the two-term limit, allowing multiple presidential terms.
Who announced the court’s opinion and where?
Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva announced it in Parliament.
Was there any legal disagreement?
Yes—some legal experts argued the amendment wasn’t retroactive and shouldn’t apply to Rajapaksa, while others supported the court’s view.

Tags

Related Articles

More from Top Stories

Explore more articles in the Top Stories category