Skripals’ blood can be taken for testing by chemical weapons body: UK judge

Photo showing a bus carrying expelled Russian diplomats from Britain leaves Vnukovo 2 government airport outside Moscow, after they were expelled over a nerve agent attack on British soil. (AP)
Updated 22 March 2018
0

Skripals’ blood can be taken for testing by chemical weapons body: UK judge

LONDON: A British court revealed that samples taken from the ex Russian spy and his daughter were analyzed by UK’s military laboratory in Porton Down point to exposure to Novichok nerve agent or a related agent.

The same court said that Blood samples from former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia can be taken for testing by the world chemical weapons body (OPCW), an English judge ruled Thursday.
The Skripals, victims of a nerve agent attack that Britain has blamed on Russia, are in a coma in a critical but stable condition in hospital in Salisbury, southwest England but sources revealed that even if they survived the poisoning they might suffer damage to their nervous system.
High Court judge David Williams ruled it was lawful for doctors “to take blood samples for provision to OPCW (the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) and to provide copies of medical notes to OPCW.”
In slasbury today, British police briefed the public about the latest in their investigation. A police spokesperson said that UK policeman in poisoned ex-spy incident has been discharged from hospital. 
Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey was left seriously ill after taking part in the early response to the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the southern English city of Salisbury on March 4.
“People ask me how I am feeling – but there are really no words to explain how I feel right now,” he said in statement issued by his local force. “Surreal is the word that keeps cropping up — and it really has been completely surreal.” 


Dissolution of Sri Lankan Parliament ‘invalid,’ Supreme Court rules

Updated 14 December 2018
0

Dissolution of Sri Lankan Parliament ‘invalid,’ Supreme Court rules

  • Ranil Wickremesinghe, said in a tweet: “We trust that the president will promptly respect the judgment of the courts”

COLOMBO: The Supreme Court in Colombo on Thursday ruled that the dissolution of Sri Lanka’s Parliament by President Maithripala Sirisena was invalid and described it as unconstitutional.
The verdict also declared that the notice of dissolution announced in the government gazette was null and void and that the Parliament could not be dissolved until four and half years from the last general elections.
On Nov. 9, Sirisena dissolved the Parliament citing his own reasons for his actions. The president appointed the former president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, replacing the incumbent premier Ranil Wickremesinghe.
The functions of the state were paralyzed when the Court of Appeal ruled this week that Rajapaksa and his team of ministers could not execute their official work until it issued a final verdict.
Thursday’s unanimous verdict was delivered in a packed courtroom by the seven-judge panel. Security was beefed up around the Supreme Court ahead of the verdict.
The petitioners argued the legality of the provisions of Articles 33, 62, and 70 of the constitution, which were subject to conflicting interpretations on the question of whether or not the president has a unilateral power to dissolve Parliament. Each of these provisions were amended by the 19th Amendment in 2015, and the changes went to the heart of the current disagreements over the power of dissolution.
Reacting to the verdict, Namal Rajapaksa, the son of Mahinda Rajapaksa and a parliamentarian, said: “We respect the decision of the Supreme Court, despite the fact that we have reservations regarding its interpretation. We will continue to stand alongside those calling for a parliamentary election, without which there is no real justice for the people.”
President of the National Unity Alliance Azath Salley told Arab News that while respecting the judgment of the court, he still believes that a general election will allow the people to decide the government they need.
Rishad Bathiudeen, leader of the All Ceylon Makkal Congress, told Arab News that the verdict is a victory for democracy and a greater victory for minority communities on the island. “We are happy that the court has upheld democratic values and shown the world that Parliament is supreme and democracy is really people’s rule,” he said.
Udaya Gammanpila, a minister in the defunct Cabinet, said: “We respect the decision of the Supreme Court although we are not in agreement with its interpretations.”
Rauff Hakeem, a former minister, said that the supremacy of the constitution and rule of law have eventually triumphed. Hakeem, who is the leader of the Muslim Congress, has a good number of legislators from his party in the Parliament.
Mujibur Rahman, a legislator from the Colombo Central Electorate, said that the court verdict had proved that the country could not be run on the whims of an individual such as Sirisena.
“Sri Lanka is a democratic country which is governed by a constitution and people’s Parliament,” he said. He also insisted that Sirisena should gracefully accept his mistake and resign from his post since he had broken the trust of the 6.2 million voters of Sri Lanka.
Rahman also said that decisions taken in the parliament during the litigation are valid from the retrospective date of when the dissolution was announced. “It’s a great victory for people and it also proved that still judiciary is independent in Sri Lankan,” he said.
Ousted premier and UNP leader, Ranil Wickremesinghe, said in a tweet: “We trust that the president will promptly respect the judgment of the courts.”