Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1992%20Vol.2-P1&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:51:04+00:00

Document:
Presidential Election Petition - General intimidation - Non-compliance with provisions of the Presidential Elections ActNo.
or 44.95% of the votes, the 1st respondent 2569199 or 50.43% of the votes and Abeygunasekera 235719 or 4.63%ofthevotes.
Commissioner of Elections declared the 1st respondent elected to the office of President of Sri Lanka.
The petitioner by petition filed on 09 January 1989 challenged the election of the 1st respondent on the following grounds.
under s. 91 (b) of the Act.
prevented from electing the candidate whom they preferred under section 91 (a) of the Act.
The petitioner called 546 witnesses, the 1st respondent 399 witnesses and the 2nd respondent 32 witnesses.
from electing the candidate whom they preferred".
majority of the electors may have been prevented from electing the candidate whom they preferred.
The petitioner's case was one of preventive intimidation and not coercive intimidation.
prevented is difficult and it is almost impossible to produce the requisite proof.
notwithstanding the secrecy provisions would it then be reasonable to say that the secrecy provisions do not apply to sec.
91 (b) and they apply to sec. 91 (a). We think not."
mind to the pattern of voter behaviour.
they preferred. The petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the result of the election may have been affected.
Accordingly the charge of "General intimidation" relied on by the petitioner as a ground of avoidance of the electionfails.
the candidate whom they preferred".
268, 269, 270, 281, 282.
2. Illangaratne v. G. E. de Silva 49 NLR 169.
3. Abeywardene v. Ariya Bulegoda  Sri LR 86.
4. Jayasinghe v. Jayakody [1985) 2 Sri LR 77, 89.
5. Ratnam v. Dingiri Banda 45 NLR 145.
6. Pelpola v. R. S. S. Gunawardene 49 NLR 207.
7. Tarnolis Appuhamy v. Wilmot Perera 49 NLR 361, 367, 368.
8. North Louth Case (1911) 6 O' M & H 103, 124.
9. South Meath Case 40 O' M & H 130, 141.
10. Woodword v. Sarsons (1875) LR 10 C.P. 733, 743, 744.
11. Wijewardene v. Senanayake 74 NLR 97, 101.
12. Shiv Charan Singh v. Chandra Bhan Singh and Others 1988 2 S.C.C. 12.
13. Hackney Case (1872) 2 O' M & H 77.
14. Morgan v. Simpson (1974) 3 All ER 722, 725, 726.
15. Anthony v. Seger (1780) 1 Hag. Con 9, 13, (1775 -1802) All ER 549, 550.
16. Faulkner v Elger (1825) 4 B & C 440.
17. Ashby v White (1704) 1 Bro Parl Cas. 62.
18. The Drogheda Case (1869) 1 O' M & H 252.
19. The Bradford Case (1869) 1 O' M & H 35.
20. The Salford Case (1869) 1 O' M & H 133.
21. The Stafford Case (1869)1 O' M & H 228.
22. The Nottingham Case (1869) 1 O' M & H 245.
23. The Borough of Dudley Case (1874) 2 O' M & H 115.
24. North Durham Case (1874) 2 O' M & H 152.
25. The Thornbury Division of the Country of Gloucester (1886) 4 0' M & H 63.
26. The Lichfield Case (1869)10' M & H 25.
27. The Thornbury Case (1886) 4 O' M & H 65.
28. The Ipswich Case (1886) 4 0' M & H 70.
29. London Joint Stock Bank v Simmons (1892) AC 208.
30. Rex v. Dolan (1907) 2 Irish Reports 286.
31. R. v. Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police Ex parte Calveley and others (1986) 1 All ER 257, 259.
32. The Dudley Case (1874) 2 O' M & H 115, 121.
33. The Bolton Case (1874) 2 O' M & H 138, 142.
34. The Norfolk Case 9 Journ. 631.
35. The Heyw Co. 555 (n).
36. The Morpeth Case 1 Doug. El. C 1471.
37. The Pontefract Case 1 Doug El. C. 377.
38. The Coventry Case P & Kn 338, C & R 276.
39. The New Ross Case 2 PR & D 188.
40. The Drogheda Case W & D 206.
41. Attorney-General v. Prince Ernest Augustin of Hanover (1957) 1 All ER 49.
42. Amoah Ababio v Turkson (1954) 1 WLR 509.
43. Warburton v. Loveland (1831) 2 D & CL. (HL) 489.
44. Vashit Narain Sharma v. Dev. Chandra AIR 1954 S. C. 513, 516.
45. Paokai Haokip v. Rishang AIR 1969 S. C. 663, 666, 667.
Obeysekera, Percy Wickremasekera, S. L. Gunasekera, M. W. Amerasinghe, Nimal Jayamanna, Morris Rajapakse, I. Yoosuf. C.
Siripala de Silva for petitioner.
K. N. Choksy, P.C. with L. C. Seneviratne, P.C., P. Nagendra P.C.Varuna Basnayake. P.C., Kosala Wijayatilake, P.C., S. C.
Crosette Thambiah, Sunil K. Rodrigo, Jehan Cassim, Naufel Abdul Rahman, Daya Pelpola, S. l. Mohideen, Raja Dep, D. H. N.
Miss 8. Y. Devasurendra, Miss Nilmi Yapa, instructed by S. Sunderalingam for 1st respondent.
P. S. C. de Silva, P.C. Attorney-General, Tilak Marapona, P.C. Solicitor-General, S. Aziz Additional Solicitor-General, K.
instructed by U. R. Wijetunga, State Attorney for 2nd respondent.
been prevented from electing the candidate whom they preferred, under section 91 (a) of the Act.
from electing the candidate whom they preferred."
and fair election. The underlying principle is that it is in the public interest that the election should be freeandfair.
In the English Common Law "general intimidation" has a well-recognised meaning which goes back to the time of Edward III.
intimidation in the case of generalintimidation,theidentificationofvictimsisdifficultandisnotnecessary.
which enacts that 'the voting for the election of the President of the Republic shall be free, equal and bysecretballot'.
corruption or violence, the election was set aside on the ground that it was not free". (at page 258).
unadulterated English Common Law" prior to 1949, or as Mr. Choksy submitted, that in addition togeneralintimidationetc.
consequence that the majority of electors were or may have been prevented from electing the candidate whom theypreferred'."
much a part of the English Law" (written submissions of Mr. de Silva).
page 264). The Court proceeded to consider several decisions, viz.Ratnamv.DingiriBanda(5),Pelpolav.R.S.S.
Gunawardene (6) Tarnolis Appuhamy v.
address were cited at the hearing on the preliminary objections. A full and comprehensive argument was presented by bothMr.
de Silva and Mr. Choksy. The argument lasted for as long as 17 days in March and May 1989.
from voting was not enough. There was the requirement of proof of anadditionalanddistinctingredientofthecharge.
not even a hint there that our law is any different from the English Common Law -thereisnosuchadditionalelement."
(Written submissions of Mr. de Silva).
affectation. But these words are not in fact to be found in the words enacted by Parliament inframingpara(a)ofs.91.
the law requires the prohibited acts or disabling facts must have on the minds of the voters". (WrittensubmissionsofMr.
candidate whom they preferred" mean more than saying "prevented from freely exercising the franchise or therighttovote"
as contended for by Mr. de Silva.
namely, the outcome of the election.
This is a material fact which the petitioner must prove and if it is a material fact to be proved, then it must bepleaded."
agree. This is how the Court in its preliminary order dealt with (1) above - (1989) 1 Sri L.R. 240 at 263.
claims, would or may have been returned but for the general intimidation?"
was satisfied. In other words the pleadings were sufficient to prevent the oppositepartyfrombeingtakenbysurprise.
candidate whom the majority of electors may have preferred but for the intimidation.
general intimidation set out in s.91 (a).
The preliminary order has dealt in fair detail with the two local cases relating to a charge ofgeneralintimidation,viz.
inadmissible hearsay, then Hearne J. could not have found for the petitioner.
Pelpola's case was also a similar case where the Court specifically addressed its mind to the pattern of"voterbehaviour".
the voters were prevented from electing the candidate of their choice.
Q. Did you expect more votes than what you received at the Presidential election of 1987?
Q. About how many votes did you expect?
A. I expected a minimum of another 20,000 more votes from my electorate alone.
Q. For what reasons did you expect more votes?
Q. Roughly, how many votes were there in support of the SLFP?
A. Two or three from each family.
Q. Were there any other reasons why you expected more votes to the SLFP?
was aggravated by the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord.
Q. Are there any other reasons?
Q. How many more votes did you expect in the entire district?
A. We expected at least another two lakhs more in the Anuradhapura district.
Q. You said you expected a very high poll?
A. Yes, but they did not turn up.
Q. Is that the reason for the petitioner to get 28,000 votes?
Q. Otherwise she would. have got over 40,000 votes?
Q. She received only 28,000 votes?
A. I expected that Mrs. Bandaranaike would get over 40,000 votes.
Q. That was the result of this intimidation caused by the shooting that took place?
for the violence the SLFP would have received more votes.
evidence of incidents outside what is pleaded in the petition is totally irrelevant to the issues that ariseinthiscase.
regard to the preliminary objection that was taken at the commencement of these proceedings".
and speculation. No one could predict how an elector who could not vote might have voted. In support of this propositionMr.
of that kind of evidence that the Court set aside the election in these two cases.
Furthermore, in the preliminary order the Court held that one of the essential ingredients of the charge of"non-compliance"
that the secrecy provisions do not apply to s. 91 (b) but that they apply to s.91 (a)? We think not.
made by this Court in these same proceedings, after a full argument, a ruling which runs counter to thesubmissionsofMr.
de Silva as we have endeavoured to show. It is scarcely necessary to repeat that this ruling is clearly binding on us.
The facts in relation to the charge of "general intimidation".
held on 17.11.88 at Grandpass in support of Mr. Ossie Abeygunasekera.
stations in the Colombo electoral district but the evidence of incidents was confined to 7 polling stations.
took place from about mid-September 1988. About 26 office-bearers of local party branches were killed and 87wereattacked.
incidents as such were not challenged in cross-examination.
division on 19.12.88 by a gang of unknown persons. This incident was not disputed by Mr. Choksy.
that this incident has not been proved.
result of this incident "a large number of people lost their enthusiasm to work for the SLFP".
concerned, the evidence of general intimidation in this electoral district is weak.
vide 1 R 57A, 1 R 5713, 1 R 52A, 1 R 55A, and 1 R 54A.
party. It is an act of treachery to carry on their propaganda activities ...".
pleaded posters threatening voters in the Agalawatte polling division.
is not challenged. Nor is the allegation in paragraph (iii) (c) that a voter at Agalawatte was shot and injured disputed.
about 10.30 a.m. Eight persons were killed and several were injured consequent upon the shooting.
incident has not been proved.
p.m. There is, however, no evidence that the explosion caused roads to be blocked.
at Agalawatte on 09.12.88. On 28.11.88 G. Wijesena, Secretary JSS Tibbotuwa branch was killedathishouseatnight.D.
UNP At the Presidential election, however, only 6 votes were cast.
were SLFP supporters and that they were unable to cast their votes.
Q. Have you been a supporter of any political party?
A. No. I am a voter of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party.
Q. You said you gave support by voting?
A. It was Sri Lanka party.
Q. What party, what was the symbol?
A. Hand, The leader is Mrs. Bandaranaike.
Q. From when were you a supporter?
A. From 1965 I am a supporter of that party.
Q. You said there were 6 persons who went along with you?
A. Yes, along with me.
Q. Did the others discuss with you where they were going?
A. We all were going to the polling booth.
Q. Did you know to which party they were supporting?
A. Yes, Sri Lanka Freedom Party.
Q. After you visited Karunadasa at the hospital did you again go round your electorate?
Q. You visited the polling stations?
Q. What did you observe at these polling stations?
stations to cast their vote.
Q. Was it only SLFP supporters who were frightened to come and vote because of this incident?
supporters at the other polling stations as well. The extent of the "affectation" is seen from this evidence.
railway station. On 15.12.88 two organizersintwodifferentlocalareasintheKundasalepollingdivision(E.N.
Putuhapuwa was shot and killed. In the Nawalapitiya polling division on 16.11.88 there wasanattempttokillH.L.P.
constructing the stage for a public meeting on 15.11.88 at Nawalapitiya were shot and killed on 16.11.88.
on 13.12.88 and on the following day Kuda Banda, the President of the UNP branch at Wattappola was killed.
canvassing and only a few supporters were willing to function as polling agents.
threatening posters in all 4. polling divisions.
supporters whose organizer was killed on the eve of polling day.
the 1 st respondent that the voters killed were UNP supporters.
station was called. We hold that this incident has not been proved.
polling station was not attacked. We accordingly hold that this incident has not been established.
submitted that Kulatunga's office was a very small one, consisting of only 2 rooms, one of whichwasusedasaboutique.
organizer was challenged but later this was not pursued.
adverse effect on the SLFP campaign.
challenged. This too was an incident which would have affected SLFP supporters.
incident would have had an adverse impact on the SLFP supporters.
hold that the averment in paragraph (j) has been proved.
evidence of O. W. Abeyratne, Upatissa Banda, D. D. Kannangara and Chandawimala Thera establishes this fact.
17.12.88. On the same day A. L. M. Sarada, chief organizer of Undugoda Palle Siyapattuwa was attacked.
the 15th of December most of the UNP chief organizers of the Laggala polling division had resigned owing to death threats.
04.12.88, the-evidence of the Police officer establishes that only one house of an - SLFP supporter wasburnton07.12.88.
There are 272 polling stations in the electoral district but the petition refers to incidents inonly2pollingstations.
Mahawatte, S. Wimalasooriya, Treasurer, Patabendimulla branch,G.K.Y.Lokuge,SecretaryIllukpitiyabranch,P.V..
working for the UNP In the Balapitiya polling division 5 strong UNP supporters were tied together and killed on 19.11.88.M.
killings several local organizers and office-bearers resigned from their posts by displaying banners and putting upposters.
Balapitiya and Hiniduma polling divisions.
allegation has not been proved.
evidence on posters who admitted in re-examination that the killings affected mostly the UNP and its supporters.
Secretary of the Urubokka Bala Mandalaya and an undergraduate of the University of Ruhuna was killed.
Q. At the time of this Presidential election campaign of 1988 what was the state of the UNP organizations at village level?
Q. As a result what was the effect of this on the Presidential election campaign of 1988 of the UNP?
A. Our organisational capacity became very much weakened.
Q. Were you able to hold meetings at village level?
Q. Were you able to go house to house canvassing?
Q. The normal election work could not be done?
Q. Were you able to get polling agents?
A. No, we were unable to get.
Kusumawathie spoke to the circumstances in which her husband came by his death.
admitted. It would appear that he was killed on the night of 14th December 1988.
Q. And for the Presidential election in 1988 could your party organization in Beliatte electorate function at all?
Q. Was your UNP organization in the Tissa electorate also able to function for this Presidential election in 1988?
Q. And in Tangalla too was the position the same?
polling agents too were afraid to function at the polling stations in the Hambantota electoral district.
started with the signing of the Accord".
intimidatory posters have been pleaded in 4 polling divisions.
voters were harassed by gangs of unknown persons.
which is about 3 miles away from Kudagalgamuwa and could not have knownwhethertheaccessroadswereblockedornot.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.