News
Appeal Court quashes appointment of NMRA Chairman and CEO
View(s):The Court of Appeal (CoA) has quashed the appointment of Prof. Asitha de Silva as Chairman of the National Medicines Regulatory Authority (NMRA) and Dr. Kamal Jayasinghe as its acting Chief Executive Officer.
In a ruling, Court of Appeal Judge Mahinda Samayawardena said the appointments were bad in Law and, therefore, null and void. He, accordingly, quashed the appointments by way of Writ of Certiorari. The petition for the Writ application was made by the multiracial and multi-religious People’s Movement for the Rights of Patients (PMRP). Its Counsel Palitha Kumarasinghe said Prof. Asitha de Silva had a conflict of interest and, therefore,
Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne was going against the NMRA Act in appointing him. Petitioner states that, in terms of the Act, the person to be appointed as a member of the NMRA, shall be a person who has not been engaged in any employment or assignment in the pharmaceutical industry, within 3 years immediately prior to such an appointment. Appearing for some of the Respondents, a Senior State Counsel said the PMRP had filed this application seeking to quash the appointment of Prof. de Silva as both a member and Chairman of the NMRA.
He was appointed as a member on May 20, 2016 and as Chairman on June 13, 2016. However, his term of office as a member and consequently, his Chairmanship, came to an end on May 13, 2018. This was not disputed by the PMRP. Prof. de Silva was subsequently appointed as both a member and Chairman of the NMRA on May 15 and May 18, 2018, respectively. He said these appointments were independent and distinct from his previous appointment. Counsel said the PMRP continued to challenge only the now expired appointments.
For this reason, the application was futile and no meaningful purpose would be served by granting certiorari. He said, even if the CoA held that Prof. de Silva’s appointment was illegal, the ruling would apply to the appointments actually challenged. The Judge said, “I do concede that the ruling in this case will apply to the appointments challenged, or the previous appointments, but I do not concede that no purpose would be served by allowing the application.”
The Judge said the CoA was duty bound to make a determination concerning the rights of the PMRP, at the time of the institution of the action. He said the case had been postponed regularly due to no fault of the Petitioner. The Judge said, therefore, the CoA would not be acting in vain by allowing the application, notwithstanding the fact the appointments challenged were no longer live issues.