• Elections will proceed as planned unless there is a court order: EC

The upcoming Local Government (LG) Elections have encountered a significant hurdle with the rejection of 420 nominations. 

The Election Commission (EC), headed by Chairman R.M.A.L. Rathnayake and Commissioner General Saman Sri Ratnayake, has made it clear that these rejections are based strictly on legal provisions, primarily concerning youth and women representation, as well as procedural errors in the nomination process.

Speaking to The Sunday Morning, Commissioner General of Elections Ratnayake stressed that the nomination process was governed by Section 28 of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance and its 2016 amendments.

He pointed out that the EC lacked discretionary power to accept nominations that failed to meet the legal criteria.

“The law mandates the manner in which nominations must be filed. If a nomination does not comply, it gets rejected. The returning officer’s decision is final and there is no appeal mechanism within the EC. The only recourse is through the courts,” he explained.

Addressing concerns about the possibility of election delays due to legal challenges, he said that elections would proceed unless a stay order was issued by the courts.

“Filing a case alone does not halt elections. A valid stay order is necessary and the duration of any delay depends on the court’s decision,” he said.

On the issue of procedural clarity, Ratnayake dismissed allegations that the EC lacked clear guidelines. “There are no special guidelines beyond the law itself. Political parties must read and understand it. If the law states that a local authority must have five women nominees, that must then be reflected in the nomination list. If not, it gets rejected.”

Filing nominations

Recognised political parties and independent groups contesting local authorities elections are required to submit two nomination papers for all wards within the local authority under Section 28(2). The first nomination paper must include candidates equivalent to 60% of the total members of the local authority, while the additional nomination paper must include candidates equivalent to 40% of the total members plus three additional persons.

Key requirements for nomination papers include ensuring adequate representation of women and youth. At least 25% of the total candidates must be youth, while 10% of candidates in the first nomination paper and 50% in the additional nomination paper must be women in compliance with Section 28(2A). 

Additionally, each candidate must provide written consent and an oath or affirmation as per the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution according to Section 28(4). Supporting documents such as certified birth certificates for youth candidates and declarations of assets and liabilities under the Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Law must also be attached according to Sections 28(4A) and 28(4B).

Nomination papers must be signed by the secretary of a recognised political party or the group leader of an independent group and attested by a Justice of the Peace or a notary public (Section 28[5]). They must be delivered to the returning officer within the designated nomination period to be considered valid (Section 28[5]).

After the nomination period closes, the returning officer scrutinises all submitted nomination papers and may reject them on several grounds, including non-compliance with submission requirements (Section 31[1][a]), missing deposits (Section 31[1][c]), absence of required signatures or attestations (Section 31[1][e]), or failure to meet women and youth representation quotas (Section 31[1][f]). 

If a candidate is disqualified due to incomplete documentation – such as missing birth certificates or oaths – their name is removed from the nomination paper without invalidating the entire submission (Section 31[3]).

Commissioner General of Elections Ratnayake was particularly firm on the claim by some political parties that ‘small mistakes’ should be overlooked. “If a party secretary fails to sign the nomination paper, or if the date is incorrect, these are not minor errors. The law only permits the correction of clerical errors, not fundamental ones.”

EC Chairman Rathnayake reiterated that the primary cause for rejection was non-compliance with the mandatory youth and women representation requirements. He explained that missing signatures, whether from the candidate or the party secretary, were another major reason for rejections. 

However, he assured that the process was impartial, stating: “We accepted 2,600 applications and rejected only about 420. This is not a systemic problem but a localised one.”

Calls for reform

The rejection of nominations has sparked outrage among political parties, with many planning to challenge the decisions in court.

Former State Minister Lasantha Alagiyawanna, representing the People’s Alliance, expressed concerns about inconsistencies in the nomination process across different districts. 

“Yes, some mistakes were made, but there were also errors on the part of returning officers. This is a serious blow to democracy. Candidates and voters are being deprived of their rights. There should be an appeal process within the EC to rectify such errors,” he said.

He also indicated that the possibility of election delays depended on the court’s decision, noting: “If the courts rule in favour of the rejected candidates, there could be delays in certain areas. However, the broader democratic process should not suffer.”

Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) MP Rohini Wijeratne Kavirathna acknowledged that her party faced minimal rejections, with only four such cases. “We have already initiated legal proceedings. There are issues with some declarations and if the courts deem them negligible, we have a good chance of overturning the rejections,” she said.

She noted that the election process could proceed in unaffected areas while court cases were pending in other regions. “If rejections are overturned post-election, an elected member may have to vacate their seat. But the elections as a whole should not be delayed.”

Meanwhile, when contacted, Deputy Minister of Provincial Councils and Local Government Prabha Ruwan Senarath confirmed that his party had faced three rejections out of 336 nominations. “We are challenging two of these legally,” he said.

He downplayed concerns about errors by returning officers, stating that legal proceedings would determine any necessary corrections. “Even if a court later rules in favour of a rejected nomination, it does not affect the overall elections. If the candidate wins their case post-election, the member elected in their stead will have to vacate the seat,” he added.

The Deputy Minister remained noncommittal regarding whether there should be an internal appeal process within the EC. “I don’t have a strong opinion on that yet, but it is something worth exploring,” he said.

The rejection of nominations has led to legal uncertainty, but the EC remains firm in its decision. With 116 local authorities unaffected by the dispute, elections will proceed as planned. EC Chairman Rathnayake said that any decision by the courts to delay the elections would need to be complied with, but even then, elections in unaffected regions would not be delayed.

He reassured the public that the EC’s role was purely administrative. “We are not biased. The law applies equally to all parties. If there were mistakes by returning officers, they can be contested in court. However, our mandate is to uphold the law, not to bend it for convenience,” he said.

Commissioner General of Elections Ratnayake on the other hand explained that the courts were unlikely to issue a stay order on the elections. “Even last time 57 cases were filed, of which 56 ended in our favour and only one went the other way. There is no process without going to the courts and the law deems that the decision of the returning officers is final,” he said.

PAFFREL stance

People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) Office and Project Finance Coordinator Indika Jeewandara said that a total of 30 incidents had been reported as of Thursday (27), most of which were minor incidents of election violence ahead of the LG Polls. 

“Greater concerns surround the rejection of around 400 nominations, primarily due to incomplete documentation like missing birth certificates and signatures, predominantly affecting youth representation. Compared to 80,000 candidates at the last election, only 31,000 are contesting this time, which makes 420 rejections a high number,” he said. 

Jeewandara emphasised the need for legal reforms, noting that outdated laws complicated fair representation, particularly in relation to the mandated 25% youth quota in nominations. “PAFFREL advocates an internal EC appeal process to address rejections before court interventions, but there is none at present,” he said.

He also pointed out the need for the EC to have financial autonomy. The 2023 LG Elections postponement due to funding delays serves as a stark warning, according to Jeewandara. “When election funding depends on political approval, it creates opportunities for interference,” he stated. 

PAFFREL advocates constitutional amendments to establish a protected budget for the EC, ensuring financial independence from the Executive branch. This would guarantee that elections proceed as scheduled regardless of political considerations, strengthening institutional credibility.

Sri Lanka’s current ad hoc election scheduling creates uncertainty and potential for manipulation. 

“We are one of few democracies without a constitutionally mandated election calendar,” Jeewandara noted. PAFFREL therefore proposes embedding specific election timelines in the Constitution, similar to systems in the US or India. This would prevent arbitrary delays or accelerations of elections for political advantage while allowing all stakeholders to prepare adequately.

While campaign finance laws exist, Jeewandara described them as being “toothless without proper enforcement mechanisms”. PAFFREL’s reform package includes real-time expenditure monitoring, mandatory digital reporting, and severe penalties for violations. “Currently, we have a law that is very vague. It needs to be improved,” he asserted.