Spat between the executive and the legislature to continue
\
GAGANI WEERAKOON -GAGANI WEERAKOON-FEB 24 2019
Though the two main parties – the SLFP and the SLPP - in much spoken about future political coalition are practically far from ironing out their differences and reaching a final agreement on a Presidential candidate, a crucial meeting took place on Friday (22) between the two groups led by President Maithripala Sirisena and Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa at President’s official residence at Paget Road. The notable absentee once again was SLPP organiser Basil Rajapaksa. Following the meeting, former Secretary of the SLFP Professor Rohana Lakshman Piyadasa told media that the new Joint Opposition that would be formed in the future would have a new name and a logo.
The contradicting and confrontational views of several SLFP and SLPP leaders regarding the party contesting the upcoming election and the logo of this alliance had been expressed over the past several months.
The latest being Basil Rajapaksa last week declaring that the SLPP would only back a future presidential candidate who will be contesting under the ‘Lotus Bud’ symbol.
The disagreements were not only witnessed between the SLFP and the SLPP, but within the so-called Joint Opposition as well.
It is not a secret that there is an undercurrent between party leaders in the Joint Opposition on certain political decisions, mainly executed by Basil Rajapaksa. This long prevailing cold war between Rajapaksa and other leaders, especially National Freedom Front Leader Wimal Weerawansa and leader of Pivithuru Hela Urumaya reached explosive levels last week when Gammanpila and Basil engaged in a heated argument.
This occurred during the Joint Opposition Party Leaders’ meeting held at Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa’s official residence at Wijerama Mawatha.
Fireworks started when Gammanpila suggested that a proper mechanism should be implemented to fill the positions that have fallen vacant in the provincial and local government institutions. “We cannot work the way you want. The SLPP is ours and things should be done the way we want,” Basil Rajapaksa had said. In response Gammanpila is said to have said, “We are not prepared to dance to your tune. Remember that we are here today because of Mahinda. If not for Mahinda, we won’t even contest under the SLPP.”
President Rajapaksa who attempted to bring the two under control several times had in what appeared like putting Gammanpila in his right place has said, “If you contested alone, it would not have been possible to get members elected.” A clearly agitated Gammanpila had then said, “You remember that Maithri Gunaratne’s Banana party got 21 and Srinath’s Bulb received 10 seats. Did you think we were weaker than them?”
Even thereafter there had been a heated exchange of words between Basil Rajapaksa and Udaya Gammanpila, but Mahinda Rajapaksa had intervened and controlled the situation.
Maithri’s grudge
Ahead of Chief Justice Nalin Perera’s impending retirement next month President Sirisena once again took the Constitutional Council (CC) to task.
The conduct of the Constitutional Council once again came under attack within a span of two weeks when President Maithripala Sirisena who arrived in Parliament to take part in the adjournment debate, on the same topic that it should not overpower the Executive.
“It seems that today the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary are being controlled by the CC. The CC should not overpower the Executive,” he said.
The President said that the 19th Amendment to the Constitution is the child he created.
“I created that child with the pure intention of establishing a good and clean society. We established independent commissions as we promised through this Amendment. I was able to gain 215 votes out of 225 MPs in favour of the Amendment. But now there is something wrong with my child. I think it has been molested by those who are there to guide this child.”
While making it clear that he has no protest against the judges who were promoted to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, President Sirisena noted that, he, as the head of the country, has a right to know why his nominations were rejected.
“I have no problem with them. My only concern is as to why my nominations got rejected by the CC. Even a labourer can seek a clarification if he loses a promotion. The Judges who were rejected by the CC also have that right. But so far no one knows as to why they got rejected. That is why I spoke about the conduct of the CC. Otherwise those Judges would be disappointed and it would badly impact the Court. I spoke on behalf of them.”
But some people tried to mislead the public about me speaking about the conduct of the CC by twisting facts I mentioned. That was very unfortunate, he added.
“As the President of the country I also have a right to know as to why my nominations got rejected by the CC. But I have not received any detailed clarification on that so far. The CC sends me reports once in three months. Even those reports do not consist of such details and clarifications.”
“As far as I know, the method adopted by the CC in appointing the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police was not just and moral. At that time, large number of civil society members was not present. We do not know whether they had been asked not to come, whether they had not been informed of the meeting, or the council decided to make those appointments even there were many absentees. Nobody knows. Those appointments have led to serious questions in the country especially with regard to the appointment of the IGP. I have stated that on an earlier occasion, too.”
Karu determined
Speaker Karu Jayasuriya on Friday (22) shot down a call by Opposition legislators, led by Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa, to stop Police investigations into the unruly incidents that took place in the Chamber on 14, 15 and 16 November 2018.
They argued on the basis that Parliamentarians are protected by Parliamentary privileges. However, Speaker Jayasuriya declined to adhere to the request as he does not intend to interfere with investigations.
He tabled the report of the Special Parliamentary Committee that investigated the unruly behaviour of MPs and forwarded the same to the Parliament Ethics and Privileges Committee.
The United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) MPs, taking the floor, expressed their displeasure at the handing over of investigations on the incident to the Police. However, Leader of the House and Minister Lakshman Kiriella, dismissing those arguments, stressed that the country’s law is supreme and that it cannot be suppressed by Parliamentary privileges.
Speaker Jayasuriya, while saying that the content of the report would be discussed at a Party Leaders’ Meeting, said that Police investigations are related to the attacks on the MPs and that he cannot interfere with them.
UPFA MP Dinesh Gunawardena, taking the floor, soon after the report was tabled, said that a UPFA team, led by Rajapaksa had met Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on 21 February to discuss this matter.
“We are interested in the rights of the MPs. The Premier agreed that we should not allow our privileges to be handed over to the Police. Our MPs are being summoned by the Police in relation to the report of the Deputy Speaker.
We are protected by the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act. If you say our MPs can be summoned by the Police for an incident within the Chamber of the House, then our privileges have no meaning. You have to protect the privileges and rights that have been enshrined for the MPs and the Parliament. You have to make a very clear decision. You should have a special Party Leaders’ Meeting on this,” MP Gunawardena told the Speaker.
The Speaker replied that Wickremesinghe too had agreed when pointed out by him that Police investigations should not be interfered with. “There is a separate Police investigation. I have no role in that. That happened because two of your MPs have complained against me to the Police and they recorded a statement from me too,” the Speaker commented.
Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa said that it is not proper that external parties such as the Police conduct investigations on incidents inside the Chamber. “The Speaker has the power even to punish. The Parliament’s powers should not be passed to the Police,” he claimed.
UPFA MP Bandula Gunawardena observed that previous instances of brawls in Parliament had never been taken to the Police or the Court. “The Parliament is supreme and we must solve our own problems,” he said.
UPFA MP S.B. Dissanayake urged the Speaker to deal with the report within the provisions of the aforesaid Act. UNP backbench MPs strongly counter-argued the claims by the UPFA MPs, while urging the Speaker to take stern actions against the MPs who misbehaved in the House without letting them hide behind Parliamentary privileges.
“We are happy that the unruly conduct of MPs has been controlled to some extent now due to the stern actions taken by the Speaker,” said MP Chaminda Wijesiri.
“Parliament has been belittled and the public viewed the unruly incidents in the Chamber with disdain. This institution must be accountable to the people. The people have a good impression on the Speaker as a clean and disciplined leader. We urge you to do everything in your capacity to take stern action against the MPs who were responsible for the unruly incidents,” said Deputy Minister Ajith Mannaperuma.
“The Police officers were attacked with chilli powder. If you undermine this incident, the next day the MPs may resort to acid attacks inside the Chamber. This incident happened in the presence of Rajapaksa. He did not do anything to prevent the unruly attacks. He too had a responsibility to control his group,” said UNP MP Sidney Jayaratne.
“The country’s law must be implemented against the MPs who attacked the Police officers. The public servants should not be harassed using Parliamentary privileges,” said UNP MP Hesha Vithanage.
“The MPs should not be allowed to break the civil laws of the country in the name of privileges. If anybody says that there should only be an internal inquiry, we condemn that statement. There must be a comprehensive investigation and the wrongdoers must be punished. Otherwise the public would curse Parliament,” said UNP MP Professor Ashu Marasinghe.
The Speaker, while observing that he does not intend to drag this issue unnecessarily, said, “We will take a decision after a Parliamentary inquiry based on the committee report. But what if someone died inside the Chamber after getting hit by the chair which was thrown at the Police officers? The Speaker cannot take the responsibility for that. Therefore, the Police are investigating it and we cannot interfere with it,” he added.
Though the two main parties – the SLFP and the SLPP - in much spoken about future political coalition are practically far from ironing out their differences and reaching a final agreement on a Presidential candidate, a crucial meeting took place on Friday (22) between the two groups led by President Maithripala Sirisena and Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa at President’s official residence at Paget Road. The notable absentee once again was SLPP organiser Basil Rajapaksa. Following the meeting, former Secretary of the SLFP Professor Rohana Lakshman Piyadasa told media that the new Joint Opposition that would be formed in the future would have a new name and a logo.
The contradicting and confrontational views of several SLFP and SLPP leaders regarding the party contesting the upcoming election and the logo of this alliance had been expressed over the past several months.
The latest being Basil Rajapaksa last week declaring that the SLPP would only back a future presidential candidate who will be contesting under the ‘Lotus Bud’ symbol.
The disagreements were not only witnessed between the SLFP and the SLPP, but within the so-called Joint Opposition as well.
It is not a secret that there is an undercurrent between party leaders in the Joint Opposition on certain political decisions, mainly executed by Basil Rajapaksa. This long prevailing cold war between Rajapaksa and other leaders, especially National Freedom Front Leader Wimal Weerawansa and leader of Pivithuru Hela Urumaya reached explosive levels last week when Gammanpila and Basil engaged in a heated argument.
This occurred during the Joint Opposition Party Leaders’ meeting held at Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa’s official residence at Wijerama Mawatha.
Fireworks started when Gammanpila suggested that a proper mechanism should be implemented to fill the positions that have fallen vacant in the provincial and local government institutions. “We cannot work the way you want. The SLPP is ours and things should be done the way we want,” Basil Rajapaksa had said. In response Gammanpila is said to have said, “We are not prepared to dance to your tune. Remember that we are here today because of Mahinda. If not for Mahinda, we won’t even contest under the SLPP.”
President Rajapaksa who attempted to bring the two under control several times had in what appeared like putting Gammanpila in his right place has said, “If you contested alone, it would not have been possible to get members elected.” A clearly agitated Gammanpila had then said, “You remember that Maithri Gunaratne’s Banana party got 21 and Srinath’s Bulb received 10 seats. Did you think we were weaker than them?”
Even thereafter there had been a heated exchange of words between Basil Rajapaksa and Udaya Gammanpila, but Mahinda Rajapaksa had intervened and controlled the situation.
Maithri’s grudge
Ahead of Chief Justice Nalin Perera’s impending retirement next month President Sirisena once again took the Constitutional Council (CC) to task.
The conduct of the Constitutional Council once again came under attack within a span of two weeks when President Maithripala Sirisena who arrived in Parliament to take part in the adjournment debate, on the same topic that it should not overpower the Executive.
“It seems that today the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary are being controlled by the CC. The CC should not overpower the Executive,” he said.
The President said that the 19th Amendment to the Constitution is the child he created.
“I created that child with the pure intention of establishing a good and clean society. We established independent commissions as we promised through this Amendment. I was able to gain 215 votes out of 225 MPs in favour of the Amendment. But now there is something wrong with my child. I think it has been molested by those who are there to guide this child.”
While making it clear that he has no protest against the judges who were promoted to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, President Sirisena noted that, he, as the head of the country, has a right to know why his nominations were rejected.
“I have no problem with them. My only concern is as to why my nominations got rejected by the CC. Even a labourer can seek a clarification if he loses a promotion. The Judges who were rejected by the CC also have that right. But so far no one knows as to why they got rejected. That is why I spoke about the conduct of the CC. Otherwise those Judges would be disappointed and it would badly impact the Court. I spoke on behalf of them.”
But some people tried to mislead the public about me speaking about the conduct of the CC by twisting facts I mentioned. That was very unfortunate, he added.
“As the President of the country I also have a right to know as to why my nominations got rejected by the CC. But I have not received any detailed clarification on that so far. The CC sends me reports once in three months. Even those reports do not consist of such details and clarifications.”
“As far as I know, the method adopted by the CC in appointing the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police was not just and moral. At that time, large number of civil society members was not present. We do not know whether they had been asked not to come, whether they had not been informed of the meeting, or the council decided to make those appointments even there were many absentees. Nobody knows. Those appointments have led to serious questions in the country especially with regard to the appointment of the IGP. I have stated that on an earlier occasion, too.”
Karu determined
Speaker Karu Jayasuriya on Friday (22) shot down a call by Opposition legislators, led by Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa, to stop Police investigations into the unruly incidents that took place in the Chamber on 14, 15 and 16 November 2018.
They argued on the basis that Parliamentarians are protected by Parliamentary privileges. However, Speaker Jayasuriya declined to adhere to the request as he does not intend to interfere with investigations.
He tabled the report of the Special Parliamentary Committee that investigated the unruly behaviour of MPs and forwarded the same to the Parliament Ethics and Privileges Committee.
The United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) MPs, taking the floor, expressed their displeasure at the handing over of investigations on the incident to the Police. However, Leader of the House and Minister Lakshman Kiriella, dismissing those arguments, stressed that the country’s law is supreme and that it cannot be suppressed by Parliamentary privileges.
Speaker Jayasuriya, while saying that the content of the report would be discussed at a Party Leaders’ Meeting, said that Police investigations are related to the attacks on the MPs and that he cannot interfere with them.
UPFA MP Dinesh Gunawardena, taking the floor, soon after the report was tabled, said that a UPFA team, led by Rajapaksa had met Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on 21 February to discuss this matter.
“We are interested in the rights of the MPs. The Premier agreed that we should not allow our privileges to be handed over to the Police. Our MPs are being summoned by the Police in relation to the report of the Deputy Speaker.
We are protected by the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act. If you say our MPs can be summoned by the Police for an incident within the Chamber of the House, then our privileges have no meaning. You have to protect the privileges and rights that have been enshrined for the MPs and the Parliament. You have to make a very clear decision. You should have a special Party Leaders’ Meeting on this,” MP Gunawardena told the Speaker.
The Speaker replied that Wickremesinghe too had agreed when pointed out by him that Police investigations should not be interfered with. “There is a separate Police investigation. I have no role in that. That happened because two of your MPs have complained against me to the Police and they recorded a statement from me too,” the Speaker commented.
Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa said that it is not proper that external parties such as the Police conduct investigations on incidents inside the Chamber. “The Speaker has the power even to punish. The Parliament’s powers should not be passed to the Police,” he claimed.
UPFA MP Bandula Gunawardena observed that previous instances of brawls in Parliament had never been taken to the Police or the Court. “The Parliament is supreme and we must solve our own problems,” he said.
UPFA MP S.B. Dissanayake urged the Speaker to deal with the report within the provisions of the aforesaid Act. UNP backbench MPs strongly counter-argued the claims by the UPFA MPs, while urging the Speaker to take stern actions against the MPs who misbehaved in the House without letting them hide behind Parliamentary privileges.
“We are happy that the unruly conduct of MPs has been controlled to some extent now due to the stern actions taken by the Speaker,” said MP Chaminda Wijesiri.
“Parliament has been belittled and the public viewed the unruly incidents in the Chamber with disdain. This institution must be accountable to the people. The people have a good impression on the Speaker as a clean and disciplined leader. We urge you to do everything in your capacity to take stern action against the MPs who were responsible for the unruly incidents,” said Deputy Minister Ajith Mannaperuma.
“The Police officers were attacked with chilli powder. If you undermine this incident, the next day the MPs may resort to acid attacks inside the Chamber. This incident happened in the presence of Rajapaksa. He did not do anything to prevent the unruly attacks. He too had a responsibility to control his group,” said UNP MP Sidney Jayaratne.
“The country’s law must be implemented against the MPs who attacked the Police officers. The public servants should not be harassed using Parliamentary privileges,” said UNP MP Hesha Vithanage.
“The MPs should not be allowed to break the civil laws of the country in the name of privileges. If anybody says that there should only be an internal inquiry, we condemn that statement. There must be a comprehensive investigation and the wrongdoers must be punished. Otherwise the public would curse Parliament,” said UNP MP Professor Ashu Marasinghe.
The Speaker, while observing that he does not intend to drag this issue unnecessarily, said, “We will take a decision after a Parliamentary inquiry based on the committee report. But what if someone died inside the Chamber after getting hit by the chair which was thrown at the Police officers? The Speaker cannot take the responsibility for that. Therefore, the Police are investigating it and we cannot interfere with it,” he added.
