The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday (8) concluded that Tourism State Minister Diana Gamage has ceased to be a citizen of Sri Lanka upon acquiring British citizenship and has also failed to prove that she has resumed the status of a citizen of Sri Lanka. As per the Constitutional provisions pertaining to Parliamentarians’ citizenship, she can no longer serve as a MP.

It should be noted first and foremost, and it cannot be stressed enough, that this matter should not have turned into such a dragged out and resource consuming process, and it would not have happened thus had Gamage, among several other parties, been honest. It is simple – she is aware of the countries of which she is currently a citizen of as well as what citizenship/s she has accepted and/or renounced, and the case would have concluded a long time ago had she presented that information.

However, Gamage chose a different approach. As was noted even in the SC verdict, Gamage had chosen to enjoy her right to remain silent, which helped her refrain from disclosing information about her citizenship status, which may have most likely been disadvantageous to her. The SC verdict explained this situation extensively, noting that other than a mere denial of her British citizenship, Gamage had made no assertion of regaining the status of a citizen via the due process. Adding that all what Gamage needed to do was present the relevant information about her citizenship and that that may well have been the answer to the pending proceedings, the SC verdict pointed out that instead of choosing that path, Gamage “chose to take refuge under the right to remain silent and the presumption of innocence, which are concepts applied in criminal proceedings.”

The SC underscored that the “position taken by Gamage is misconceived in law.”

Gamage’s case provides a number of lessons, which are more relevant than before because the country is likely to see a Presidential Poll and a Parliamentary Election within the next one and a half years.

The first lesson is about honesty. Honesty on the part of not only election candidates but also the political parties that field candidates. While the former has a responsibility to reveal all the relevant information, the respective political parties should also educate and direct candidates to reveal the relevant information. The failure to reveal a candidate’s citizenship status, among the other things that a candidate is required to reveal or prove, should be considered a ground for disqualification. At the same time, the relevant political parties should, as per the existing laws, reveal that information wherever necessary. If Sri Lanka does not have the laws necessary for that, Gamage’s case is a reminder to do that.

However, realistically, we cannot expect Sri Lanka’s election candidates or politicians and political parties to be honest to such an extent, especially when it can be disadvantageous to them. That is why the second lesson is about the role that citizens should and can play in supporting democracy and the rule of law. In Gamage’s case, her citizenship issue was brought to the surface by an activist named Oshala Herath. Both the Party through which she was elected to the Parliament, i.e., the main Parliamentary Opposition Party - the Samagi Jana Balawegaya, and the Party she worked with, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), had adopted a silent approach as Gamage did in Court. We did not see them actively seeking proper investigations or a conclusion in Gamage’s case, which can easily give the impression that they were trying to defend her or that they did not want to support something that could not be in Gamage’s interest. That is why this incident should be a reminder to concerned citizens that if they were to utilise the available legal avenues, what they can achieve could be surprisingly beneficial to the country.

At the same time, this incident shows the lackadaisical nature or unwillingness among several authorities to support certain types of legal proceedings, especially those involving and which could affect those in powerful positions. The Immigration and Emigration Department takes a special place in Gamage’s case, as the Institution’s conduct has been questionable. First, the election monitor – the People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections, had sought details about Gamage’s citizenship status through a Right to Information request. However, the Department declined to provide the said information citing various reasons including the information being of a ‘personal’ nature, and at one point, it remained silent. Secondly, as per the reports, the SC had questioned the veracity of the information submitted by the Department because the Department had provided inconsistent, and at times, unclear information. If such a key Institution could refuse or delay the provision of such specific information pertaining to a matter of democracy and the Constitution, it raises serious questions about the ability of public institutions and high-ranking officials to lie to the people and the law. In this context, it is also important to make this an opportunity to identify the integrity and law abiding aspects of the public service, and it is quite relevant if Sri Lanka is to benefit from the ongoing and future public sector restructuring efforts. If the public sector is not held accountable, especially in the interest of the tax-paying public that keeps the public service running, that would obstruct any progress the restructuring efforts are aiming to achieve. Restructuring efforts should be focused on quality.