Constitutional Crisis? Lost Game Of The Second Eleven!
Rusiripala Tennakoon
The puppetry, country is watching about the need to reconvene the parliament has deepened our perplexity. Chapters and verses are quoted driving us to believe them. We cannot be blamed for beginning to see tempests in our tea cups they are showing.
Some maintain that the country is heading towards another crisis amidst the CORONA pandemic. They allege we are on the edge of a crevasse of a constitutional crisis, and the parliament should meet to avoid it. Let us examine this.
The word dissolution applies in common to both, a parliament dissolved by the president under a proclamation as well as a parliament that stands dissolved after its full term.
Article 62 (2) “expiry of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissolution of parliament”
And 70(1) ‘president shall not dissolve parliament until the expiration of a period of not less than 4 years and 6 months…………”
This shows that there is no distinction between a parliament which stands dissolved due to expiry of the term and a parliament dissolved by the President, with regard to the application of the constitutional provisions. There is only one instance according to the constitution where such a parliament could be summoned to office after dissolution.
Article 70(7), “ if any time after dissolution of parliament , the president is satisfied that an emergency has arisen of such a nature that an earlier meeting of parliament is necessary, he may by proclamation summon parliament which has been dissolved to meet on a date not less than 3 days from the date of such proclamation and such parliament shall stand dissolved upon the termination of the emergency or the conclusion of the General Election, whichever is earlier.”
According to this in order to convene the parliament;
1. the president has to be satisfied that an emergency has arisen,
2. and the situation necessitate such an early meeting
Unless the President is of that opinion, no one can force him to do so. Definitely not any ex-parliamentarians who now stand reduced to normal persons native of the country!
The feeling that they could have continued for another 6 months, is a flight of fancy, having no constitutional validity. The President in power and the care taker cabinet is empowered by the constitution to continue until election is held and a new government is formed. Convening of a parliament does not arise except under article 70(7). Hence there is no constitutional requirement to reconvene a dissolved parliament.
Dubious and untrustworthy statements by senior opposition politicians to justify their intentions behind the claim to reconvene the parliament make things worse. They say ‘we promise we only want to avoid a constitutional crisis’. Sounds naïve! Their repeated assurances that it is only for the purpose of approving funds for expenditure too, is highly incredible in the context of how they behaved during the last parliamentary session before dissolution. On that occasion the opposition created the picture of being hell bound to throttle the government at any given instance. So the demand for reconvening the parliament looks like a Trojan Horse!
Another reason stated by them to support their argument in favour of summoning the parliament is the canvassed consternation about the possible consequential perils of not doing so. They accuse that the President has no powers to authorize any expenditure from the Consolidated fund without the approval of the parliament. Former Finance minister Mangala has gone to the extent of cautioning the president that if he continues to act in this manner he can be charged and a court of appeal can decide to impose the removal of his Civic rights and confiscation of his properties. Is he trying to do a favor to the President by reminding him of the danger ahead or is he trying to intimidate him to make him reconvene the parliament? Whichever is his motive we can now see that such viewpoints have been consigned to the WPB.
Let us examine this allegation in the context of the constitutional provisions.
Without prejudice to any unseen provisions expressly provided for in the articles, we would like to refer to the Articles dealing with the Public Finance under the sub-heading “withdrawal of sums from consolidated fund”, applicable to the current situation;
Article 150 (3), “where the President dissolves Parliament before the Appropriation Bill for the financial year has passed into law, he may, unless parliament shall have already made provision, authorize the issue from the Consolidated Fund and the expenditure of such sums as he may consider necessary for the public services until the expiry of three months from the date on which the new parliament is summoned to meet.”
