The Prime Minister – Irremovable
Rusiripala Tennakoon
According to Mr. Shaymon Jayasinghe, an Australian citizen, there is no provision in the Sri Lanka constitution to remove or replace the Prime Minister once appointed. Whatever is spelled out by interpretations of the constitution, there is no doubt that the entire democracy would be shocked by his revelation that there is no provision for the removal of a person from a position by the appointing authority.
Before we examine the veracity of the isolated constitutional aspects highlighted by Shayman, let us for a moment consider the ethics of good governance and established democratic principles underlying the position, as stated by him viz: “However it is possible that he may lose the VNC brought in by the JO. Whatever may happen the move does not inflict terminal damage on the PM incumbent”.
What a sad state of affairs. In a democratically elected parliament, a group of duly elected MPs exercise a legal right and a parliamentary privilege to bring a no-confidence motion against the conduct of another parliamentarian on specific allegations leveled against him. The Parliament accepts and passes the motion with a majority. But, alas! According to Shayman, that parliamentarian can continue regardless of the outcome because according to the constitution “he need not quit his role as Prime Minister”.
Such sadistic and unholy views and observations will make our country a laughing stock in the democratic world. In particular Shaymon should bear in mid the high degree of respectful democratic practice followed by the politicians in the country where he lives, Australia. We are aware that even a person convicted for a major crime will look for ways and means of saving his neck from the gallows. Human nature. But a person elected by the people to hold a position on their behalf, if resorts to hang on to such positions despite, “whatever may happen” seeking refuge under legal provisions there could arise many repercussions. We have seen this happening recently in several countries. Only a few people like Shaymon would advocate such a policy irrespective of serious consequences to the country, people and the political image.
In the current incident, the charges leveled against the Prime Minister are directly pointed and related to him. The CBSL Bond Scam is now a matter, clearly decided upon by :
1. A private lawyers committee privately appointed by Ranil Wickremesinghe
2. Two COPE sittings appointed by the Parliament of Sri Lanka
3. A Presidential Commission of Inquiry which has submitted a report after a lengthy public investigation/inquiry.
The issues raised and the allegations leveled are specifically referring to some involvements established beyond doubt and others admitted by the PM himself. Because it is public knowledge I do not wish to dwell on such here. But if Shaymon wishes to enter into any debate or controversy, such details can be produced in most authentic manner as we have covered this episode in detail from the beginning.
The writer is attempting to show a distinction between a VNC against the PM and a NC against a Minister. According to him, however much a passed VNC is politically damaging to PM, he cannot be removed.
Perhaps people living overseas are exposed to information and events concerning politicians in all capacities where voluntary self-decided actions have saved the need for VNCs than us in Sri Lanka.
