CPA executive director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu has told radiogagana.com that as a public servant, the AG had a duty to appear for the interests of the public as well.
Saravanamuttu said the AG had not properly interpreted the law when he told the court that only parliament had the powers to question, as per clause 38 (2) (a) of the constitution, had the president violated the constitution.
He noted that there was no parliament to question the constitutionality of the presidential action, since it had been dissolved on November 09.
A seven member SC judges bench, headed by chief justice Nalin Perera is taking up the petitions against the dissolution of parliament.
In his submissions, the AG said the president dissolved parliament in accordance with clause 33 (c) of the constitution that empowers him to convene, prorogue or dissolve parliament.
Alleging that the AG made contradictory submissions, the CPA executive director argued that it was wrong to take clauses of the constitution separately to make an interpretation.
The AG should have considered the 19th amendment to the constitution as well, he said.
Clause 17 of that amendment allows the president to dissolve parliament following the lapse of four and a half years or if a two-third majority of MPs make a request.
The SC yesterday extended the interim injunction issued against the dissolution of parliament until December 08 and will today take up the related fundamental rights petitions for the fourth day running.