Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Thursday, April 30, 2020

Sivaram remembered across North-East

Memorial events were held across the Tamil homeland this week to mark 15 years since the assassination of Tamil journalist Dharmeratnam ‘Taraki’ Sivaram.
30 April 2020
D. Sivaram, also known as Taraki, was a renowned journalist and editor of the website TamilNet, who was abducted on 28 April 2005. His body was found the following day inside a High-Security Zone in Himbulala, a Sinhala suburb of Colombo.
Families of the disappeared in Vavuniya lit candles, as they remembered the slain Tamil journalist on day 1167 of their protest.
Meanwhile, the Jaffna Press Club marked the anniversary of the killings of Sivaram and Selvarajah Rajivarman in another remembrance event.
Selvarajah Rajivarman, a journalist who worked for Namathu Eezhanadu and Thinakkural before joining the Uthayan, was killed two years to the day, by a lone gunman in the middle of Jaffna town. He was just 25-years-old at the time.
In Vavuniya, Tamil journalists paid tribute to Sivaram in a memorial event organised this week.
The TNPF office in Batticaloa also paid tribute to the murdered journalist.
See more on Sivaram here.

Eight Questions To Government From Tamil Civil Society Forum In Relation To Their Handing Of Covid-19 

It is well acknowledged that Governments must be transparent and accurate in their public communications, to the maximum extent possible, as part of their response to a global health pandemic. During a pandemic citizens and civil societies cannot be passive consumers of information that is put out by Governments. Questions must be asked and asking questions must not be considered as burdensome by the Government. In the interests of bettering our response to COVID-19 the Tamil Civil Society Forum puts forward the following eight questions and seeks an early response from the Government to the same.
1. Governments world over have been guided by science in deciding their exit strategy to lockdown measures. The main criteria used has been the rate at which the virus is transmitted and as to whether the resources of the public heath sector in the State is able to cope with the rate at which the virus is spreading. What is the current rate of transmission in Sri Lanka? Where does that rate stand when compared with the resources that we have in our public health sector? What data was used by the Government in relaxing the curfew on 20 April 2020?
2. To determine the real rate of transmission it is suggested that testing must be expanded. Has the number of tests being performed on a daily basis progressively increased in Sri Lanka? Have sufficient funds been allocated for the purchase of testing kits? Are we in a position now where tests are being performed on those not exhibiting symptoms of COVID19 as well? If not, how does the Government calculate the real rate of transmission? 
3. On what basis was the curfew lifted on 19.04.2020 for most districts? Was the date decided to impact on the meeting of the Election Commission on 20.04.2020 to determine the date of elections? Why did the Government ignore the suggestion made by the Provincial Director of Health Services of Jaffna not to relax the curfew for at least one further week? 
4. What are the Government’s plans of returning to normalcy in a phased manner while making sure that there is no second spike in infections? Why did the Government even before the curfew was lifted announce that schools and universities will recommence on 11 May 2020 (subsequently withdrawn). When schools and universities recommence what is the Government’s plans for ensuring social distancing? Has adequate funding been allocated to these institutions to put in place infrastructure that facilitates social distancing?
5. What standards are used in the maintenance of quarantine centres operated by the army? Who decides where these quarantine centres are set up? Do public health officials have a role in the selection? Why cannot the running of these centres be left to public health officials? Without restricting themselves to emergency work why is the military leading what is essentially a public health problem? What competence or training does the armed forces have to carry out these functions? 
6. In case there is a spike in infections again and the need for a curfew what plans are in place to ensure that daily age earners and those under the poverty line are not adversely affected? Beyond cash transfers to Samurdhi beneficiaries what plans does the Government have in place to deal with hunger?  

Read More

Health, democracy and economy: Triple jeopardy

Curfews and lockdowns may be necessary, but soldiers in military kit and their style of commanding and communicating with ordinary people create more anxiety and fear among them than willingness to cooperate - Pic by Shehan Gunasekara 

Friday, 1 May 2020

The extent of damage that COVID-19 has caused to people’s health and the economy globally is anyone’s guess, because the damage is continuing to mount. Already, more than three million people have been confirmed infected, and more than 217,000 had died. Those numbers are increasing, may be at a decreasing rate and in some countries the curve is flattening.

In the meantime, the WHO Chief warns that the worst is yet to come and a second wave cannot be discounted unless a vaccine is discovered soon. Economically, the world has received a severe haemorrhage, and the IMF Chief expects global economic growth to turn sharply southwards this year, and the downturn would be even worse than the 1930 Great Depression. It is in this globally gloomy background that Sri Lankan leaders seem to play politics with COVID-19.

After decades of misgovernment, corruption and economic mismanagement people were totally disillusioned of politicians and were desperate for a team of honest men and women under a strong leader who would take control, cleanse the mess, introduce reforms and lead the country along a path of recovery without depriving the people of their liberty and freedom.

Ruchir Sharma, in his fascinating insights into ‘The Rise and Fall of Nations’ (Penguin, 2017), reckons with justification that, “the probability of successful, sustained reform is higher under fresh leaders rather than stale leaders, under leaders with a mass base rather than well-credentialed technocrats, and under democratic leaders rather than autocrats” (p. 63).

Accordingly, the choice of Gotabaya Rajapaksa (GR) as President, with an outright majority, satisfies Sharma’s “fresh” and “mass based” criteria for a leader, but GR’s own choice of a cabinet from “stale” leaders and his step by step approach so far towards autocracy has jeopardised not only successful and sustained reforms, but also as a result, the economy and democracy.

With the invasion of COVID-19, the country is facing a triple jeopardy. Firstly, in spite of curfews and lockdowns the number infected the virus is increasing and health experts are warning that the country is still not out of danger. This is in contrast to the sanitised picture painted by the government and its apparatchik media channels and spokespersons.

Truth is always the first casualty in a war and it is so in this war against the pandemic too. Inadequate testing, substandard hospital facilities and insufficiently trained paramedics to handle epidemic victims have put people’s lives and livelihoods in danger.

Curfews and lockdowns may be necessary, but soldiers in military kit and their style of commanding and communicating with ordinary people create more anxiety and fear among them than willingness to cooperate and may be one of the reasons why many are not coming forward to report known cases of infection.  Popular dissatisfaction appears to increase.

Realising this, GR and his apparatchiks are sanitising the real health scene and politicising it so that a General Election may be held before the situation worsens on both health and economic fronts. This explains the President’s controversy with the Election Commission and infighting within the commission itself.

The election has now been fixed for 20 June, which again may be postponed if the pandemic continues to prevail. However, the Commissioner maintains that there must be a period of six weeks before the date of the election so that a level playing field could be provided for all parties and candidates to canvass for votes. GR on the other hand insists with some justification that the country cannot afford long-running campaign expenses. Does he want to block the Opposition from campaigning at all?

If case the election is postponed to a later date, he is constitutionally obliged either to reconvene the dissolved Parliament or rescind his election gazette notification. He is not willing to do either. As Emeritus Professor Savitri Goonasekera has clearly argued the ball is GR’s court.

The Opposition’s willingness to offer conditional support to GR’s efforts in tackling the pandemic and the economy if the Parliament is reconvened has fallen on deaf ears. It is to avoid the Parliament at all cost that he met the prelates to get their approval and blessing to continue with presidential rule. Sending the Army to Parliament and cancelling all leave of the tri-forces does not augur well for the future of democracy in the country. A fully-fledged autocratic regime if not total dictatorship seems to be rising on the horizon. It is the country’s democracy that is facing the second jeopardy.

Even then, the biggest battle for GR will be in the economic front, which is the third jeopardy. Having committed to an open economy, and relegated import substitution as expensive and wasteful even for food production, the economy is caught in a situation where it is going to face shortages on several fronts.

International trade has been crippled and the country’s exports have to wait its trading partners start regaining growth momentum, which in all probability will take fairly long time. Alternatively, even to provide stimulus for inward looking growth, the Government’s revenue difficulties is proving to be the greatest obstacle.

The latest Central Bank Report, which urges Government to concentrate on revenue mobilisation does not explain how would that be achieved given the falling rate of corporate profit, shrinking markets for exports, declining personal incomes and rising unemployment.  Poverty and inequality are set to become nastier, and the country needs a carefully balanced strategy of maintaining a tolerable level of welfare while stimulating productivity and growth. Fiscal consolidation and monetary easing alone are not sufficient.

Even though the economy was already in a perilous state before the outbreak of COVID-19, since the outbreak the situation has become exceptionally dire. Financing growth through further borrowing from external sources is going to be costly, because even the usual lenders are running dry of surplus funds. The latest move for a currency swap with India for $400 million, which is an expensive and risky mode of borrowing, shows how desperate the situation Government is facing. 

Given this gloomy scenario, the country needs a collective effort to get through its difficulties. By rejecting the olive branch from the Opposition and by arrogantly pursuing his self-centred strategy of governing through task forces and tri-forces, GR is jeopardising people’s health, democracy and the economy.


(The writer is attached to the School of Business and Governance, Murdoch University, Western Australia.)

SRI LANKA: PRESIDENT’S PROCLAMATION DISSOLVING THE PARLIAMENT HAS TO BE TREATED AS NULL AND VOID. – LAWYERS FOR DEMOCRACY.



Sri Lanka Brief30/04/2020


Lawyers for Democracy views with deep concern the failure of the President to summon Parliament under Article 70(7) of the constitution.  Article 70(7) of the constitution clearly sets out that at any time after the dissolution of Parliament the President is satisfied that an emergency has arisen of such a nature that an earlier meeting of Parliament is necessary the President can by a proclamation summon the Parliament which was dissolved and thereafter such Parliament will stand dissolved upon the termination of the emergency or the conclusion of the General Election whichever is earlier.

Undoubtedly an emergency has arisen firstly, for the reason of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the economy and the administration of the country, and secondly due to the fact that the General Election had to be postponed to a date after the date stipulated in the proclamation dissolving the Parliament dated 2nd March 2020.  Our country has not faced such a serious emergency situation during our life time.

It is true that Article 70(7) has vested the discretion on the President.  But under our law there is no absolute or unfettered discretion and any discretion vested in an authority cannot be used arbitrarily.  Under our law, discretion is vested in a public authority with the trust that the public authority will use the discretion in the interest of the public to uphold the purpose for which such discretion is vested in the public authority in trust.

Lawyers for Democracy is of the view that a constitutional crisis can be averted by summoning the Parliament under Article 70(7).

Further, it is plainly clear that the President is vested with the power to dissolve Parliament after 4 ½ of its five year term under Article 70(1) only on the condition under Article 70(5) (a) that the proclamation dissolving Parliament shall summon the new Parliament to meet on a date not later than 3 months after the date of such proclamation.  Since the Election Commission under unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances has postponed the General Election to the 20th of June, the proclamation of 2nd March 2020 dissolving Parliament and fixing the date of the sitting of new Parliament before the expiry of 3 months after dissolution, that is, before 2nd June 2020 cannot be a reality therefore the proclamation of 2nd March 2020 dissolving Parliament is not valid and the proclamation of 2nd March has to be treated as null and void.

Therefore, Lawyers for Democracy calls upon the President to summon the Parliament by a proclamation under Article 70(7) of the constitution and to summon the new Parliament to meet on a date after 20th June and thereby uphold the constitution and avoid a constitutional crisis.

A constitutional solution to the impending constitutional crisis


Photo by AP via ABC News

PROF. JAYADEVA UYANGODA-04/30/2020

The threefold crisis that our country faces— public health, the constitutional, and political—is exacerbating day by day. In the latest development, a number of soldiers of the naval and special task forces of the Welisara and Seeduwa camps, who have been on front-line duty, have contacted the virus. At the same time, the virus has begun to spread in new villages outside Colombo and among low-income neighbourhoods in the Colombo city. These developments have further compounded the already complex problems caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

The government’s militaristic thinking and mind-set have led to the following policy measures:
  • Instead of obtaining the assistance of the armed forces to manage the behaviour of civilian populations as required during a public health emergency under the leadership of a civil administration, the civil administrative structure itself has been placed under military authority.
  • The fundamental difference between a ground war against ‘terrorism’ and a civilian operation against a virus in order to restore public health under conditions of a pandemic was ignored.
  • It is, in fact, unimaginable that the only protective gear provided for soldiers who went in search of and eventually captured those suspected corona-contacted individuals did not have personal protection equipment except face masks. Allowing these troops to go back to their villages on leave with no precautionary quarantining or strict health advise shows an inexplicable disregard for the dynamics and behaviour of the coronavirus. It is important to understand that there is only a very limited role that the military uniform and the automatic gun can play in this very different ‘war’ against a very different ‘enemy’, the corona virus.
Another expression of the President’s strategy to defeat the corona epidemic through a militaristic approach was the belief that he could conclude this ‘war’ too unilaterally, in accordance with his own political agenda, and that he alone being entitled to the glory of the victory. The President must at least now be open to accept at least the basic differences between these two campaigns of ‘war.

No military-type solution

This new situation sends an important message to the government as well as the President—that there is no military-type solution to the public health crisis caused by the spread of the coronal epidemic. The President launched the ‘war’ against the corona virus, comparing it with the successful military operation that defeated LTTE terrorism. However, what observers speculated upon hearing his statements on television is now, unfortunately, being affirmed; that a military approach does not solve, but rather can even worsen, the problem that could go beyond its public health parameters and in turn lead to crises in other domains too.

It is now the time to take a critical look at the strategy that has been implemented so far by the President and his military and medical advisors with regard to the corona public health crisis. The first phase of the government’s strategy is now over with success in a range of areas. Paradoxically, it has not brought about rapid normalization as promised by the President and his team. Initial successes in the public health front are paralleled with a range of social problems that still await acknowledgment. Meanwhile, the pandemic itself is threatening to enter into the phase of community spread. It has now begun to target the urban poor and the working class as well as the rural poor, indicating that the pandemic has begun to operate along class cleavages.  The President’s acknowledgement of this social reality of the public health challenge should be the first step towards such a review. The second phase should be designed only after recognizing that there can be no military approach to solving this crisis which is now spreading into political, constitutional, economic and social spheres as well.

Acknowledging that there is no military approach to solving the pandemic-induced crisis of several levels is not to say that the military and the police have no role to play in managing the public health crisis. It only means that the military approach as well as the militaristic thinking, calculations and mind-sets should no longer be allowed to dominate the government’s overall thinking as well as the government’s immediate strategy to manage the public heath crisis. The limits of the military-mind set are likely to be particularly pronounced in the President’s handling of the political, constitutional and social dimensions of the general crisis precipitated by the public health crisis.

A New Approach

A  non-militaristic strategy to contain and eventually end the present crisis is urgently needed. The first element of such a new strategy should be to demilitarize the present ‘operation’ that has been launched. This does not mean the removing the armed forces and the police from the duties of public security or functions elating to maintaining the law and order as well as medical and administrative emergencies. However, their participation should be regulated within a framework of a structure under the joint leadership of civil administrative officials and representative participations of medical experts. An example of civilian leadership over the military in peace times is the mobilisation of the police and armed forces during the election period under the direction of the Election Commission. The guiding governance principle here should be the civilian control of the military’s role in the public health emergency. Meanwhile, the GMOA’s role in formulating the President’s strategy has already become controversial and there is a growing sense that broadening of the stakeholder participation in decision making has become urgent.

The second element of the new strategy should be the President opening up and widening his political reach. This means that his current suspicion of and rivalry against opposition parties is suspended and that he enables the government strategy to benefit from a broad spectrum of political and policy consultations, ideas, policy inputs as well as disagreements and debates. Such a shift in basic political attitudes in a moment of exceptional global and national crisis should enable a measure of constructive cooperation between the President and the opposition political parties and other stakeholder communities.

The bitter rivalry between the present ruling party and the opposition political parties that was heightened during the presidential election. It continues to cast its dark shadow over the political landscape. This relationship of enmity between the two main camps of Sri Lanka’s political class has also caused a deep mutual mistrust between them. It has now led to a situation in which the parliament and the executive –two main organs of the state – are once again thrown into an unnecessary power struggle. The hostility that the President’s camp has been showing towards the institution of parliament under the present constitution only bodes ill for Sri Lanka’s democratic constitutionalism. The present public health emergency, the future directions of which remain uncertain and unpredictable, should not be the moment for such a breakdown of relations between two key organs of the state, because it will have grave consequences for democratic governance.

Instead, challenges presented by the current crisis should be managed through more, and not less, democracy.  That is also why the government’s military approach to the corona crisis needs to be replaced by a more open, consultative and civilians-led process in which all opposition political parties too have apace for participation.

Thus, in the current context in which the Parliament is dissolved and it remains inactive, and where the only branch of the state structure that remains active, actually super active, is that of the Executive headed by the President. Therefore, it is not at all a bad thing for the President to open himself up politically and reach out to his political rivals and many others outside his own close constituencies. Such democratic openness will also ensure that not only the credit for success, but also the blame for any failures could also be shared among all without acrimony.

The Election Crisis

Of course, the constitutional and political crisis in the wake of the dissolution of parliament and the inability to hold the parliamentary election within the stipulated time as mandated by the Constitution is also no less significant. The worsening of the condition of this crisis is heightened by the following:
  • The Election Commission itself has been expressing doubts as to whether the election could be held on June 20, which is the new date set by the Commission.
  • The possibility that the current period of uncertainty may persist until the end of May, according to the new trends in infection.
  • As is known by now, the serious constitutional uncertainty that will ensue if a new parliament is not elected by June 02. One of the main arguments emerging in the light of this is that if a new parliament is not elected by June 02, the President’s dissolution of parliament on March 02 would automatically become invalid. This would mean that the old, dissolved parliament will be back in force.
  • Similarly, there is a continuing dispute over the question whether it is the President or the Election Commission that have the legally valid authority to determine a new date for the parliamentary election.
Against this backdrop, a few unusual constitutional questions are likely to arise. For example, will the dissolved parliament be reactivating itself by default after June 02, when the dissolution period of three months comes to an end without a new parliament being elected? On the other hand, is it a part of the scheme of things as envisaged by the some that the Parliament, having been unable to replace its old self by a new one as required by the Constitution, will exhaust its life as an institution of the state? Will that open up space for unconventional solutions, outside the framework of the present constitution, to the emerging crisis? These are very difficult questions to answer. Nevertheless, they are hovering in the horizon.

A win-win solution?

What is in store for the citizens of Sri Lanka is likely to be a major politico-constitutional crisis the consequences of which may prove themselves to be unimaginably severe. At stake would be the very existence of constitutional governance in our country. This impending constitutional calamity needs to be avoided. It requires imaginative, out- of -the box and courageous thinking and action on the part of the political leadership.

Therefore, this is the moment for the President, the Prime Minister and his party, opposition parties as well as groups and individuals who influence the public opinion of the country to start a new conversation about at least a tentative, crisis-prevention alternative course of action.

Looking at the available options from the point of view of the President, who received a popular mandate as recently as five months ago, re-summoning of parliament is a measure that falls well within the Constitution and law. Rescinding the dissolution order of parliament by a new order is perhaps the least complicated in terms of implications of the action. Although it is an action that has no precedence, it can be justified by the continuing uncertainty about the holding of elections as well as constitutional complexities that arise because of the non-holding of election due to the continuing pandemic. It also keeps the option open for the President to dissolve parliament again at a time of his choice, and perhaps in consultation with the Election Commission. It is true that there is no explicit provision in the constitution for recalling a dissolution order However, the President has the power to re-call, amend or revoke a previous order he may have made. The Interpretation Ordinance provides for it. Thus, revoking the dissolution of parliament is not unconstitutional, as the President seems to think, or is probably advised to think.

The second option is creating conditions for re-summoning the dissolved parliament by making a proclamation, under Article 70 (7) of the Constitution, that a public health emergency has arisen. Such a proclamation will enable the President to issue another proclamation summoning the parliament which has been dissolved after three days of such proclamation.

Although no such proclamation has been made as yet, what we are facing is indeed a situation of emergency. It is a public health emergency that has forced the government to respond in an emergency-footing. President has deployed the armed forces to assist the health authorities, appointed the Army Commander to head the Presidential Task Force, while the police, obviously on President’s orders, has declared curfew, and begin to enforce lock downs. The government is also employing military intelligence agencies to enforce ‘contact tracing’, which has serious implications for individual rights. By deploying the armed forces, the government has also been compelled to take   measures to protect the populations and maintain at least semblance of normality in public life. This is indeed an undeclared state of emergency in two fundamental meanings of the concept: (a) the executive branch of the state is forced to acquire and exercise exceptional powers, without explicit parliamentary sanction, and (b) certain key freedoms and liberties of citizens have been curtailed and suspended by executive actions. If this is not an emergency, what else can be?

If the President makes a proclamation under the Article 70 (7) or under Article 155 (3), such proclamation makes it necessary for the dissolved parliament to be reactivated. A reactivated parliament shall remain in force until the end of the emergency, or until the parliamentary election is held.
The challenge we face in this context is how to persuade the President to choose either of those two constitutional alternatives to deal with the political aspects of present public health emergency. One thing is clear: the President’s choice for re-summoning the dissolve parliament cannot, should not, be a unilateral process. It has to be part of a political deal, a mutually beneficial political bargain between the President and the opposition.

It seems that the President’s camp is of the opinion that the choice of either of the above options leading to summoning of the dissolved parliament will be advantageous to the opposition parties in an unfair and partisan manner. They do not want opposition parties to gain even an inch of advantage in what they see as a positional warfare. Additionally, they have the apprehension that if Parliament is re-summoned, the opposition will use this to defeat, or disrupt or embarrass the President and the government. The trust deficit between the two camps is a part of the on-going political reality.

In this context, the President, the government and the opposition will have to think rationally — or prudently, if we use a normatively inclined term — about the emerging crisis, and take action that will serve everyone’s enlightened self-interest.  The following might be considered as suggesting such a prudent course of action:
  • Both the government and the opposition can be in a win-win situation if Parliament is summoned. For the government, a re-summoned parliament will enable them to update the old public health and safety laws with new ones appropriate for a modern society and pass new legislation. Further, the curfew, the legality of which is still unclear, can be validated through parliamentary sanction as well as new legislation. Concurrently, the government can make yet another gain. That is, it will be able to obtain the funds necessary for public expenditure after April 30 with the approval of Parliament. As things stand as of now, funds for government expenditure are to be obtained on the basis of the Article 150 (4) of the Constitution. Whether or not this course of action is constitutional remains unclear. Matters that are in constitutional and legal grey zones can be cleared.
  • The ‘victory’ the opposition parties can secure is the opportunity to participate as partners in the process of controlling and ending the spread of corona epidemic which has now become a national crisis. It can also contribute to an all-party effort to avoid a totally unnecessary constitutional crisis.
It is in this context that the President could perhaps respond positively to the joint opposition statement offering ‘responsible cooperation’ until the corona crisis is reasonably managed and the postponed parliamentary elections are rescheduled. At the core of that offer is re-summoning of Parliament by the President either by rescinding the dissolution order or by exercising his power under Article 70 (7) of the Constitution. The statement also seeks to alleviate the President’s camp’s apprehension that the opposition’s proposal is probably motivated by a hidden political agenda.
This is the moment in which the claims of political maturity by Sri Lanka’s political leaders will be put to severe test.

Fundamental Rights Petition Filed Against Holding Elections

Election Commissioners
logoAfter astonishingly decided to hold the Parliamentary Poll on 20-06-2020 by the Election Commission of Sri Lanka, lots of concerned parties mooted that could this decision be implemented as there will be surfeit of court cases which will be filed in the Supreme Court in coming days. Accordingly, one Petition (SC/FR/89/2020) has been instituted by an Attorney-at-Law and former member of the Colombo Municipal Council – Charitha Maithri Gunaratne of No. 118, Barnes Place, Colombo 07.
To this Petition, Election Commission, Mahinda Deshapriya – Chairman of the Election Commission, N. J. Abeysekera, S. Rathnajeevan H. Hoole, P. B. Jayasundare – Secretary to the President, Dr. Anil Jasinghe – Director General of Health Services and Attorney General have named as the Respondents.
The Petitioner has, inter alia, pleaded that, holding the Parliamentary Poll on 20-06-2020 have violated and/or been violating his Fundamental Rights protected under Article 12(1) and 14 of the Constitution.  Further, he has also averred that the election prescribed to have on 20th June, 2020, has violated the Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties protected by Article 27 of the Constitution.
The Petitioner alleged that the purported order published by the members of the Election Commission in the Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 2172/03 dated 20-04-2020 to conduct the Parliamentary Election on 20-06-2020 is, illegal and unconstitutional, unreasonable, ultra vires and has violated the Fundamental Rights protected by the Constitution to the Petitioner, due to number of reasons, viz, inasmuch as the Article 70(5)(a), 70(5)(b) and 70(5)(c) of the Constitution has provided mandatory provision to convene the new Parliament not later than 3-months from the date of proclamation of the dissolution of Parliament, the election date could not surpass 02-06-2020; inasmuch as the section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Parliamentary Election Act No. 01 of the 1981 (as amended) has provided mandatory provisions for the fixing of date for the Poll within a period not less than 5-weeks and not more than 7-weeks from the closing date of the Nomination,  the election date could not have exceeded beyond 13-05-2020; even if the section 24(3) of the Parliamentary Election Act No. 01 of the 1981 (as amended) is abided by, the members of the Election Commission could have proclaimed the new Election date [whilst complying to the rule of not less than 14-days, after the original date (25-04-2020) of Poll] which would fall from 11th of May to 13th of May; but, contrary, the members of the Election Commission have willingly and knowingly violated the very Act which they should resort to.
In this Petition, the Petitioner has pleaded that the Election Commission was compelled publish the Order in the Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 2172/03 dated 20-04-2020 due to actions and omissions of the 5th Respondent, the Secretary to the President who also represents His Excellency the President. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, as per Article 33(1)(d) of the Constitution, the President on the advice of the Election Commission, has to ensure the proper conditions for the conduct of a free and fair election and referendum. Since Sri Lanka is still being battered by Covid-19 pandemic, and also the President has failed to ensure the proper conditions for the conduct of an election, the President and the 5th Respondent – the Secretary to the President have violated the above Constitutional provisions. This was evident by the fact that, despite the concerns made by the members of the Election Commission in their 2-letters dated 31-04-2020 and 01-04-2020 and the individual letter dated 16-04-2020 sent by Prof. S. Rathnajeevan H, Hoole, the Secretary to the President failed to advice and/or direct the President to take actions under Article 33(1)(d) of the Constitution. Hence, the President himself has violated the constitutional onus which was bestowed upon him.
Nearly 700-Million Rupees are estimated to spend for the Election and that amount will double should Sri Lanka take extra precautions, such as the practices followed by South Korea, to take steps to prevent the infection rate during the election time. It was further mentioned in this Petition that, Government has yet not introduced any stimulus package to the assaulted economy for which may need so much of funds in near future with the unprecedented unemployment which could also hamper the economy soon; whereas, should the election be conducted, the enormous amount of resources which could have used for the regaining of the economy and the welfare of the society will have to be utilized for an Illegal Election.
More importantly, the Petitioner has pleaded that should the Election Commission to continue the election according to the Extraordinary Gazette Notification No.  2172/03 dated 20-04-2020 the life of the people will be at a stake and the Right to Life which is the golden thread of each concept of human right shall have no value.

Read More

248 Sri Lankan sailors test positive for Corona virus

 30 April 2020
At least  248 sailors at a Sri Lankan naval base have currently tested positive for the coronavirus admitted authorities, in what has been the biggest outbreak of the virus on the island so far.
Shavendra Silva, currently heading COVID-19 operations, stated that among the 30 cases in the last 24 hours, 22 of them were navy sailors and all but one of the rest had been in close contact with them. 
According to AP News, the virus spread to the different parts of the island through sailors who were sent on leave after being deployed to capture drug addicts evading quarantine, who had reportedly been in contact with a patient with COVID-19. 
Thus far a total of 4,000 navy troops have been quarantined alongside 242 of their relatives at centres run by the military.  
As of today, Sri Lanka's COVID-19 patients has increased to 653 with seven deaths.
According to Lankadeepa, six or more villages have been sealed off this week in Sri Lanka due to exposure from sailors returning home. A further 1,300 have also been asked to self-quarantine reportedly. 
See more from AP here.

COVID-19: SRI LANKA’S MILITARISED RESPONSE POSES GRAVE THREATS TO HUMAN RIGHTS – ACPR REPORT


(Adayaalam Centre for Policy Research (ACPR)- Situation Brief No. 3)

Sri Lanka Brief30/04/2020

As the world struggles to deal with an unprecedented global pandemic, it is imperative that states choose an approach that respects human rights in addressing this crisis. This brief highlights several human rights concerns in relation to Sri Lanka’s militarised approach to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic with a focus on civil and political rights. Now more than ever, scrutiny of governmental action is imperative to ensure that measures taken during this public health emergency do not infringe unduly upon individual and collective rights in the short or long-term, especially for those who are already vulnerable.

Below is a brief timeline of major developments relating to the COVID-19 pandemic in Sri Lanka.

Reconvening Parliament and the way forward


“The principle of the unitary executive, which I endorse, concerns the identity of the person who controls executive functions, not what those functions or the legal constraints on them are.”
 - John C. Harrison,
 29 April 2020

Executive Power

The date that the President declared that the General Elections were to be held, in pursuance to his proclamation by Extraordinary Gazette on 02 of March, i.e. 25th April came and went. Given the alarming surge the COVID Curve has shown in the last few days, one only wonders in trepidation, as to what would have been the status of the dreaded curve, had the election taken place on that date. In a context where the President stubbornly refusing to reconvene the Parliament, leaders of seven opposition parties handed over a letter to the President saying that Parliament should be reconvened in terms of the very clear and the most constitutional way of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic that is gripping the entire world at this point of time.   

Priorities divided  

While the wisdom of the decision to prematurely dissolve Parliament in the first place, when the entire world was bracing itself for an unprecedented onslaught of a modern day version of the medieval plague, the President showed that his priorities were clearly divided between doing the best for the country and getting the best political advantage possible by calling a General Election. Most of the Sri Lankans feel that the President, who has not been challenged in terms of his appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as the PM, in spite of being in the minority in parliament before it was dissolved, must have been under pressure from the SLPP, his elder sibling and his inner sanctum in particular, who are hell bent on establishing a government of their own.   
Constitutional provisions do allow the President to reconvene Parliament without any difficulty. The uncertainty and apprehension that a Constitutional crisis could be on the offing, after or even in the midst of the COVID onslaught, in my opinion, is not based on a reading of the Constitution. But more easily and comprehensively explained in view of the greedy power politics that take place in situations of this nature.   

A constitutional crisis will arise only if the President wishes that it be so

Otherwise the Constitution, as criticised as it is, specially, after the 19th Amendment, not only permits a very constitutional and lawful way out of the situation, but when read with the normative rules of Constitutionalism, highly promotes and requires the President to respect the Constitution and reconvene Parliament. Article 70 (7) provides the most expedient and least cumbersome manner in which it can be done. Furthermore, anybody with a pinch of Constitutional inkling knows that when a provision facilitates the reconvening of a Parliament after dissolution, for an emergency, it not only permits such an option but indeed, strongly suggests so, unless the President is not convinced that this is not an emergency! Otherwise, why should the Constitution speak about reconvening a Parliament already dissolved, in case of an emergency.  

Public Finance

I do not wish to go in detail to the constitutional melee that would unfold in the event, a Constitutional crisis does occur. Rather I would like to highlight two aspects that would make it imperative that the legislative powers vested with the people and exercised by the Parliament, be respected and invoked. The mandate that the President received at the November Presidential polls is to be the Executive of the country and not to play the part of the legislature, by any stretch of the imagination. The control of public finances, vested with Parliament in terms of Article 148, is one of the most salient and integral parts of the sovereignty of the people as exercised by the Parliament. In the event the government needs to borrow more money for the purposes of countering the pandemic medically as well as for the restoration and revival of the civil life, such measures have to be done according to the constitution. That means that such monetary and fiscal measures have to be done by the Parliament and Parliament alone.   
It cannot be delegated to the President, the Secretary to the President, Basil Rajapaksa, the Central Bank Governor, Army Commander or anybody else. It would be very likely that the state borrowing limits that have to be under the supervision of the Parliament will have to be exceeded, and the consequent raising of the ‘debt ceiling’ raised to a new level. Such a move could be constitutionally, democratically and lawfully done only through the mandate of the Parliament. Specially with the assurance given by the Opposition now, it seems that the President is not likely to face any resistance in taking the measures that an unprecedented calamity of this nature demands. Even in case the President wishes to impose emergency law in terms of Sec. 02 of the Public Securities Ordinance, it can be maintained only through the sanction of the Parliament, which means it has to be convened even if the President wishes to act under a law of emergency as extension is possible only with the consent of Parliament.  

Sacrosanct right of the voter

The other aspect that I wish to highlight emanates from the fact that any attempt to hold a general election in a hurry, which will have to be the case, in terms of the Constitution, based on the date of the proclamation of dissolution, which was on 02nd March 2020. As the Election Commission informed the Secretary to the President, in the wake of the dissolution, the new Parliament had to be convened before 02nd of June 2020. But the Election Commission emboldened by the powers it was endowed with the 19th Amendment, did initially refuse to call an election on 25/04/2020 and subsequently, fixed 20/06/2020, tentatively, as it would seem, still emphasising the fact that it would be subject to the ground reality in terms of the pandemic situation.  
Given the fact that Sri Lanka is not yet even near the flattening of the curve but rather facing an upsurge of the outbreak, it is very unlikely that a proper election could be held even by the 20th of June. If the Election Commission was compelled to hold it nevertheless, it would not be a free and fair election where the voter would be able to come to the polling booth and exercise the Sovereignty vested on him to appoint law makers to Parliament but a farce in the name of holding an election.   

Constitutional experts in saffron robe   

On the other hand, if the President were to reconvene the old parliament, a move that saffron robe wearing ‘Constitutional experts’ who flocked to the Presidential Secretariat a few days ago adamantly resist, then the Parliament could be alive till 01st of September as mandated by the People if not for the early dissolution, which of course is constitutionally allowed, by the President on 02nd March 2020. In such a scenario, the date before which the newly elected Parliament needs to be convened is 01st of December 2020, which one could be hopeful, is a date far enough for the pandemic situation to have subsided and some kind of normalcy returned, enabling the Election Commission to hold a decent, free and fair election general election, which will reflect the will of the people in exercising their sovereignty.   
We do not want the sovereignty of the people exercised through the universal franchise subverted as has happened a few times in our electoral history, like the Presidential Elections of 1989 where a boycott and a ban of voting by the insurgents resulted in almost half of the registered voters not turning up and possibly causing an impact on the result as well as the 2005 Presidential Elections , where again , a prohibition by the LTTE to the Northern voter, quite possibly changed the outcome of the Presidential Election. Irrespective of party politics such erosion of and encroachment in to the power of the ballot, should not take place in the future, for whatever reason. 
The price of another Constitutional quagmire   
We underwent a so-called ‘Constitutional Crisis in October 2018, less than two years ago and the loss caused economically, let alone the international embarrassment, is huge. Yet given the nature of the crisis that we are in today, even if we manage to come out of the tunnel called ‘COVID-19’, with our main sources of income, expatriate workers, tourism and export oriented apparel industry crippled in an unprecedented manner, we need to do all that is possible to avoid such a conundrum. And we need to buckle up our seats for a global depression that will indeed be global and transnational, and of course, of a daunting nature. The people need to have the government they chose to take them through such rough and perilous waters.   
 Therefore, out of the several options available to the President, the only decent, constitutional, lawful and moral act that can be performed by the President, at this crucial point of time, is to reconvene Parliament. If he does that, he need not harbour any fear whether his party will win the elections whenever at a suitable time that may be. We are confident that such a move will be met with common approval and the President will be able to garner the support of those middle class and floating voters for his party, as he did last November. Yet, he stands only to lose, if he stubbornly disregards the ground situation and takes the risk of playing with an invisible enemy, of a very stealthy and wicked nature, that even superpowers such as USA and China are struggling to handle.   
The President can prove whether he is as patriotic as some of his ardent supporters claim him to be or on the other hand, show that he is not so and in fact a pampered doll who had been blown out of proportion by virtue of belonging to the most powerful political family in the island, as his detractors suggest.   

May Day


Rusiripala Tennakoon
logoToday is the World Labour Day, more popularly known as the May Day. World History records it as the day of commemoration for the workers of United States who agitated at the cost of several human lives and with much blood shed, during the demonstrations and the strike, demanding an 8 hour working day, starting on 1st may 1886 in the United States, culminating in the famous Haymarket square Massacre. No single event has influenced the history of labour in the entire world as much as the Haymarket affair. On this historic day still remaining dedicated to the working class ever since,  we recall with great respect those happenings.
The  hardships, faced by mostly immigrant workers during the period between 1882 and 1886, led towards an Organizational buildup demanding better working conditions. Workers had to toil exceeding 60 hours during a 6 day-week. The response of the Employers was extremely hostile and  instead of acceding to the just demands they resorted to anti-union measures such as sacking, discriminating against unionized workers, lockouts, enrolling black-legs, and even employing hooligans and thugs to divide and terrorize the workers. 
Targeting May 1, 1886 to be the day for starting a 8 hour- day, the organizations campaigned for it from 1984. On Saturday, 1 May 1886, about half a million went into action joining in rallies, demonstrations and went on strike. Nearly 40,000 workers went on a stoppage of work  in Chicago. The strike continued and on 3rd May a confrontation between  non- striking employees with the strikers, developed into big brawl. The Police previously summoned by the factory owners to give protection to the strike breakers fired on the crowds killing two persons.
This police action caused an outrage which forced the strikers to stage a stronger protest on the following day. With fliers and notices circulated they organized a mammoth rally at the Haymarket Square in the City, with the slogan, ‘to seek justice against the murder of strikers by the Police’. It was a well-attended rally with over 3000 workers participating conducted peacefully, watched by a large Police  battalion stationed nearby. When it was very late in the evening at about 10 pm, a posse of policemen suddenly broke in to the meeting place ordering the meeting to be stopped and the workers to disperse. Then a bomb was thrown at the advancing police party by some unknown person which exploded killing two policemen and mortally injuring 6 other officers. Enraged, police started to fire into the crowds. The actual number of casualties has not been determined, but the civilian deaths has been estimated to be about 8. Fleeing workers were shot at causing fatal injuries. The police deaths as later confirmed by evidence , except for one resulting from the bomb throw, has been due to the indiscriminate police shooting killing their own officers in the darkness of night.
Eight activists were arrested and a mock trial with handpicked Jurors, convicted them for murder. On 11th November 1887, after many trials in appeal three persons were hung to death.  One person committed suicide in the prison cell on the night before the hanging. The other 4 convicted were subsequently pardoned by Authorities publicly condemning the travesties of the infamous judgement. The people who took leadership in that historic struggle are treated as martyrs of the working class and the 1st of May as the day of remembrance of the Haymarket Heroes as a  day dedicated as the International Workers’ day. Owing to the people who  sacrificed their life and blood, and those who became victims of mock trials to be hanged, and their families burned down to the ground, we enjoy a 8-hour working day with Saturday as a week end. 
On this day, we will be failing in our duty on behalf of the oppressed and the working class in Sri Lanka  (then Ceylon), if we fail to pay our tributes to one of the pioneering Trade Union leaders popularly known as the “ Father of the Labour Movement”. He is none other than Alexander Ekanayake Gunasinghe ( 1May 1891- 1August 1967), himself was born on the May day. History provided me the graet opportunity to be in his shoes for nearly a decade leading the Ceylon Bank Employees Union {CBEU} as its President, founded by A.E. Gunasinghe.
He is remembered today as the undisputed Leader who spearheaded the country’s Trade Union movement. His activities were prominent in several fields. He was a social worker, a freedom fighter, a politician turned Trade Union Leader who was accepted as an Advocate of the Poor. His political career started with the formation of the CEYLON LABOUR PARY in 1928 associated with several other prominent personalities like, C.W.W. Kannangara, George E de Silva, and C.E. Corea to mention a few. Late President Premadasa too was in the committee. A.E. Gunesinghe engaged in his Public and Social activities during a period when the Country was under the rule of the British empire. The Colonial background and the oppression the people faced under it, made him to rise up, as a freedom fighter, and a radical who braved all odds with his daring qualities, as a courageous leader, fighting for the rights of the workers. 
Gunesinghe started his national freedom struggles in association with Anagarika Dharmapala joining his Temperance Movement, soon after he was released from custody, arrested on account of the 1915 riots. He was imprisoned with leaders like D.S. Senanayake, F.R. Senanayake and D.B.Jayatilleke. Two others who were taken into custody with them, C.A. Hewavitharana and Henry Pedris were shot under military law under fabricated criminal charges. Gunesighe along with others fought valiantly against the Colonial Government and stood as a prominent figure revolting against taxes imposed by the British on poor people. Gunesinghe gave leadership to defy those, himself becoming a victim for penalization under which he was made to break rocks by hand. The monument put up as a memorial in the Gunesinghepura area, later named in his honour, depicts this episode.
A.E. Gunasinghe’s involvements in the Trade Union Movement in Sri Lanka marks several mile stones. He founded the first Trade Union, “Ceylon Labour Union” in 1922. A series of defiant struggles led by him succeeded in bringing about great measures of relief to the working population in the country. 
The Government railway strike, 1923, succeeded in obtaining a 20% salary increase and casual and Sick leave rights.
Harbor Workers Strike (1929) was another important Strike action initiated by his Union and it resulted in a wage increase of 0.25 cts and a lunch break of 15 minutes.
Tram Workers Strike, 1929 was one which sparked off many clashes and troubles. Police harassment of the strikers spread the strike to other sectors of the working class and gave rise to large demonstrations. A clash took place between the Police and the Strikers and the Maradana police station was set on fire. The unrelenting employers were forced to come to a negotiated settlement after 13 days of strike action.
A significant factor that needs emphasis about the role of A.E. Gunasinghe in the labour movement of the country is that he achieved many good results while the British Government and the Leading Employers were reluctant to recognize the radicals who controlled the militant urban labour movement. Despite this his Union movement was successful in persuading some liberal employers to enter into historic collective agreements incorporating landmark terms and conditions highly beneficial to the workers. This was an indirect acceptance by the British that the  articulate group of urban workers, politicized and educated, associated with radical leaders was a group that should be recognized as a group capable of championing the interests of the workers.
Gunesinghe’s expansion into a country wide Trade Unions movement culminated with his entry into the banking Industry in 1943. Employees in many Imperial and Colonial Banks were unionized under the Ceylon Bank Clerk’s Union formed by A.E. Gunasinghe as its first President. It was registered on 1st September 1944. During this period bank employees were working under enormous hardships and the Colonial masters treated them shabbily. Bank clerks were made to work several hours a day beyond the normal periods without any OT payments. Salaries, increments, promotions and even the super-annuation payments were highly discretionary and worst of all discriminatory. Locals were ill- treated  in granting promotions and placements. 
The Unionization of the banking Industry and the militancy that was associated with the movement brought about a marked change not only in the banking industry but served as an impetus to the other sections of the working class in the country. The union was successful in winning many industrial awards of lasting benefits due to the Industrial actions which led to the appointment of Commissions and Industrial Arbitrations. There were several Strike actions launched in the banks by the Union and they resulted in the employees securing, holidays, overtime payments, super-annuation schemes, regular annual increments and equitable promotions etc.etc. Certain land mark Awards such as the Roberts Award 1944, Thambiah Award. St Claire Swan Award, each of which guaranteed rights and privileges the employers were refusing to grant earlier.
A.E. Gunasinghe’s public role was crowned with his entering into politics. In 1931 he was elected as the first member of the Colombo central electorate and was elected to the Colombo Municipality in 1940. He became the first Ceylonese Mayor of Colombo in 1943. In 1947 he entered parliament as the first member for the Colombo Central electorate and became a minister in the  D.S. Senanyake cabinet.

Read More