Former Foreign and Justice Minister, Presidential Counsel Ali Sabry, has raised concerns over the Election Commission’s decision to reject YouTuber Ashen Senarathna’s independent group’s nomination due to a technical error.
Sabry questioned whether such rejections, based on minor procedural issues, align with the principles of democracy and the public’s right to choose their leaders.
Popular YouTuber Ashen Senarathna revealed yesterday that his independent group’s nomination was rejected by the Election Commission. In a social media video, he expressed frustration, stating the rejection was done claiming a wrong person handed over the nomination papers.
Senarathna announced plans to take legal action against the decision, claiming that although he was present as the leader of the group, he was asked to wait outside, leading another candidate to submit the nomination.
The Election Commission reiterated that the Election Act specifies which individuals are authorized to hand over nominations. Failure to comply with this results in disqualification. (NewsWire)
Full Statement from Ali Sabry PC
This isn’t about whose nomination was rejected or what their qualifications are—that’s for the public to decide. The real issue is whether rejecting a nomination based on an absurd technicality is right.
Even if a nomination paper was handed over by an unauthorized person, shouldn’t the nomination officer verify that before accepting it? How can it be acceptable to accept the papers, wait until the deadline lapses, and then reject the entire list? Is it the public duty of an election official to accept and then invalidate without giving a chance to correct the error? Even if there was one.
If the nomination paper is in proper form, contains the names of the candidates, has the necessary signatures, and shows clear consent, isn’t that substantial compliance? Should the entire list be thrown out just because of who physically handed it in?
The Election Commission’s job is to facilitate the people’s right to choose, not block it over technicalities. Their role is to guide the process and ensure that the public can exercise their right to vote, not to penalize candidates. Substantial compliance should be the standard, not rigidly enforcing minor procedural issues that prevent the public from making their choice.
We’ve seen this before like in 2018, with the Weligama Urban Council case. Even though all candidates were present together, the entire nomination list was rejected because someone other than the leader handed over the papers. This technicality denied an entire electorate from deciding the candidates of their choice from a wider pool of eligible candidates.
This is about democracy and the people’s right to choose their leaders, not about individual candidates or parties.
Procedures matter, but the Election Commission’s role is to ensure fair representation, not obstruct it with overly rigid interpretations of the law. The focus should be on guidance, not punishment, when minor procedural errors arise because at the end of the day, democracy is about giving the people the right to decide.
Its beside the point whose nomination paper was rejected and what is his profession and whether one like him or not.