The Political Implications Of The 19th A & The Emerging Politico-Legal Crisis
Dhanushka Silva
Piyumani Ranasinghe
Sri Lanka is currently enduring a constitutional and politicalcrisisdue to the events of the famous Friday evening, the ongoing regime change with the appointment of a new prime minister on the 26th of October. The political and constitutional implications of the constitutional coup; against the brewing interpretations on the validity of appointing the new prime minister is taking the center-stage in the national political arena. Interestingly, the differing framework of views between the two camps (in favor of the new appointment and in opposing the new appointment) has created a divide between loyalties, where currently, the situation is at an uncertain standstill due to the varying political undercurrents which operates behind closed doors.
Behind the sensationalism involved in the disturbing series of events, there is an array of constitutional and political implications on the island nation and its already debt-destined future. This plight that the nation is faced with can be redirected to the political and legal implications of the 19th Amendment to the constitution. Whilst the amendment rejuvenated the debate on democracy and good governance in an attempt to amend the powers of the executive presidency, on which the architecture of the 1978 second republican constitution resides, it has also paved the way for inexplicable political and constitutional implications, including the current issue with the appointment of a new prime minister.
1. Divided camps and Divided Loyalties
There are various interpretations to the constitution brought forth by two main political camps, those arguing in favor of the appointment (headed by the SLFP and SLPP) and those arguing against the appointment (headed mainly by the UNP). In the attempt to validate their respective positions, the pickaxes of both camps are not only hollowing out their respective galleries, but killing the spirit of Constitutionalism left in this country.
The SLFP and SLPP camp argues under Article 48 (1) that the prime minister can be dismissed, because the National Government dissolved once the SLFP ministers crossed over into the opposition on the 26th of October. The argument is that, these former ministers were central to the existence of the National Government and at their departure, the National government also collapsed.
However, it should be noted that, according to Article 43 (3) (3), whilst the President may at any time change the assignment of subjects, functions and even the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers; such changes shall not affect the continuity of the Cabinet of Ministers and the continuity of its responsibility to Parliament. Thus, the entire regime change that took place overnight, in the manner it did, is clearly unconstitutional. The power of dismissing the Prime Minister could be assumed as inherent to the power of appointment in the constitution prior to 2015. However, after the 19thAmendment Article 46 (2) expressly specifies ways in which the Prime Minister vacates office and this is why Article 42 (4) only allows the President to appoint the Prime Minister, and says nothing about dismissing the Prime Minister.
Generally, the power of dismissing the prime minister is vested with the Parliament, and not with the President in terms of formal Parliamentary traditions. There are ways in which the parliament can officially dismiss the government and the prime minister, which involves the Parliament rejecting the Statement of Government policy or the Appropriation Bill (budget) or passes a vote of no-confidence in the government according to article 48 (2) of the Constitution.
