Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Drama in House as Speaker takes Voice Vote

Serjeant-at-Arms Narendra Fernando holding the Mace while in session yesterday. Picture by Rukmal Gamage.

Disna Mudalige and Amali Mallawaarachchi-Thursday, November 15, 2018

Parliament, which was prorogued by the President on November 4, commenced sittings at 10 a.m. yesterday after the prorogation.

The Stay Order issued by the Supreme Court on the dissolution of Parliament paved the way for parliament to sit yesterday.

Parliament was adjourned until 10 a.m. today after a Voice Vote on a No Confidence Motion against the PM and the Cabinet was taken up by the Speaker.

The much-awaited first sitting of third session of Eighth Parliament was held yesterday amidst high tension and excitement.

Free seating in the main Chamber had been arranged with the Prime Minister’s seat given to Mahinda Rajapaksa, Chief Government Whip’s seat to Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and the seat of Leader of the House to Minister S.B.Dissanayake.

At the commencement of sittings, Speaker Jayasuriya urged members of both sides to act with restraint to uphold the dignity of the House, reminding them that they were being watched by the entire world.

Representatives of Diplomatic missions and foreign media personnel were present in the gallery to witness proceedings. Former Prime Minister and UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe sat on the fourth row of the Opposition side. Several UNP MPs sat on the last row of the Government side as the Opposition benches were overflowing. The UNF MPs were wearing a black ‘sataka’ which read “For Democracy” and carried a number to show their majority.

Secretary General Dhammika Dasanayake read out President Maithripala Sirisena’s Gazette Extraordinary on the prorogation of Parliament as per tradition. While the SG read out the Gazette, MPs Piyasena Gamage and Manusha Nanayakkara crossed the floor from the Government to the Opposition. Opposition MPs welcomed them by thumping on their desks. UPFA MP A. H. M. Fowzie was seen seated in the Opposition aligning himself with the UNF MPs.

After the SG’s announcement, TNA MP M. A. Sumanthiran moved a motion calling for the suspension of the Standing Orders (SO) of Parliament for yesterday’s sitting as per the section 135 of the SO. He also proposed to adopt the motion by going for a division in the House. JVP MP Vijitha Herath seconded it.

Chief Government Whip Dinesh Gunawardena strongly opposed the move and demanded the House be adjourned immediately as no items have been listed in the agenda for yesterday. He stressed that it was the Parliamentary tradition and that it must not be flouted. He added that proceeding to other business on the inaugural day of a new session was against the Constitution. The members in the Opposition shouted in disagreement.

The Speaker said that he allows the House to decide as it was a special occasion. At this point, MP Vijitha Herath walked to the chair of the SG and handed over a No-Confidence Motion against the new Government, receiving the applause of the Opposition members. JVP Leader Anura Dissanayake then called on the Speaker to move MP Sumanthiran’s motion to suspend the SO for a vote. All Opposition MPs raised hands in favour of the motion while the UPFA MPs agitated against.

At this point, Serjeant-at-Arms Narendra Fernando took the Mace to his custody and held it close to the Speaker’s chair to prevent any MPs from grabbing it. The UPFA MPs said the vote could not be taken without the Mace in the bracket. However, the Speaker said that he recognises that the Mace was properly held near his Chair as per the Standing O.

The Speaker, going by the majority will of the House, let the JVP Leader to move the NCM in the House. Minister Wimal Weerawansa objected saying that the NCM could not be taken up on the same day that it was submitted. The Speaker replied that he was going by the majority decision.

The UPFA MPs stood from seats in protest while MP Anura Dissanayake read out the NCM. While confusion reigned in the House, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa left the main Chamber escorted by MP Namal Rajapaksa. JVP MP Vijitha Herath seconded the NCM.

Over 30 UPFA MPs led by Udaya Padma Shantha, Prasanna Ranaweera, Sanath Nishantha, S.B. Dissanayake and Mahindananda Aluthgamage stormed the well of the House, some pointing fingers at the Speaker.

The Opposition MPs remained in their seats and the Speaker said that he would move the NCM for a vote as per the majority will. However, the UPFA MPs did not allow a floor vote and remained in the middle of the floor shouting slogans against the Speaker. As the Speaker’s repeated requests to the MPs to take their seats to conduct the vote went unheeded, the Speaker decided to go by the Voice Vote.

When the Speaker asked aloud as to who are in favour of the motion, the Opposition MPs stood up and shouted “aye”, but when the Speaker asked as to who are against the motion, the UPFA MPs who were in the middle of the floor did not react. Therefore the Speaker ruled that the NCM was passed as per the Voice Vote. Then he announced that the prevailing Government does not command the majority in the House.

The Speaker then adjourned sittings till 10 a.m. today. The UNP MPs were jubilant after the sittings concluded and were seen congratulating each other and clicking photos inside the Chamber. Many MPs were also seen congratulating former PM Wickremesinghe. UPFA MPs left the chamber immediately after the adjournment.

UPFA Minister Duminda Dissanayake was a notable absentee during the yesterday’s sitting. Immediately after sittings, Ministers Vadivel Suresh and Wasantha Senanayake switched allegiance back to the UNF and said that they would resign from their portfolios with immediate effect.

Remembering the Batticaloa Lake Road Massacre of 1985

13 November 2018

Maju (Manojkumar Pirathapan) was a student at St Michael’s College. He was two weeks shy of his 19th birthday when Sri Lanka’s Special Task Force (STF) rounded him up and killed him in the Lake Road Massacre of 1985 in Batticaloa Town.

On November 13, 1985, STF troops began rounding up Tamils in Batticaloa, in retaliation against civilians after a landmine explosion. Troops radioed each other about Tamils on the road and then redirected them to Lake Road.

33 years later, families of the victims recalled how 13 young Tamil men were rounded up and made to walk with their ID cards in the air. STF troops shot them in the neck or head, except the youngest, Maju, who they shot in the chest.

Later that day, families went looking for their sons and eventually found their bodies at the morgue. The STF gave the families just two hours to perform funeral rites.

Meanwhile, troops rounded up a second group of young Tamil men. However a monitoring committee was in town and had seen the round-up and called the Sri Lankan air force. With public attention on the STF, the air force made the STF release the rounded up men before they were killed.

About a week later, a landmine explosion on Bar Road killed the STF perpetrators. The families of the Lake Road Massacre victims identified the dead troops as their sons’ killers as the victims’ ID cards were found on the troops bodies.

Events as described by victims’ families to PEARL, Batticaloa 2018. Adapted from a series of tweets by PEARL.

SRI LANKA: FULL TEXT OF SUPREME COURT VERDICT ON DISSOLUTION GAZETTE

14/11/2018

The following is the verdict issued by the Supreme Court on the parliament dissolution gazette when the hearing was taken up before courts yesterday (13).
Twelve FR petitions were filed challenging the President’s gazette notification. ( Sunday Times)

Sri Lanka: De facto Prime Minister Rajapaksa sacked — Speaker

( November 14, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The de facto Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa installed by President Maithripala Sirisena by sacking sitting Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has sacked by the Parliament today by voting in favour of the no-confidence motion submitted by the JVP, the Speaker of the Parliament Karu Jayasurya informed in a press release.

*JVP Members of the Parliament handing over the no-confidence motion against de facto Prime Minister and Government*

Here is the Press release ;

Constitutionality of the dissolution of Parliament: An interpretation?

“The only true guide and the only course which can produce stability in constitutional law is to read the language of the constitution itself, no doubt generously and not pedantically, but as a whole and find its meaning by legal reasoning” – Garfield Barwick (CJ, Australia, 1964-1981)

Thursday, 15 November 2018

What is important in understanding the provisions of the Constitution in respect of the powers and functions of the President with regard to the dissolution of Parliament is to read carefully the provisions objectively and without preconceived values or advocacy. As Sir Garfield Barwick said, ‘read the language of the constitution itself’ and I must add - without dragging into what others’ have said, or what must have been desirable given political objectives or intentions in a particular amendment.

There are two important Articles 33 and 70 which give powers and also prescribe certain limitations in respect of dissolution of Parliament by the President. The first Article 30 is in Chapter VII titled ‘The Executive’ and subtitled ‘The President of the Republic.’ Second, Article 70 is in Chapter XI titled ‘The Legislature’ and subtitled ‘Procedures and Powers.’

Article 33: Duties, Powers and Functions of the President

Let me first quote Article 33 in full, highlighting in bold what might be most pertinent.

Article 33. (1) It shall be the duty of the President to

(a) ensure that the Constitution is respected and upheld;

(b) promote national reconciliation and integration;

(c) ensure and facilitate the proper functioning of the Constitutional Council and the institutions referred to in Chapter VIIA; and

(d)on the advice of the Election Commission, ensure the creation of proper conditions for the conduct of free and fair elections and referenda.

(2) In addition to the powers, duties and functions expressly conferred or imposed on, or assigned to the President by the Constitution or other written law, the President shall have the power

(a)to make the Statement of Government Policy in Parliament at the commencement of each session of Parliament;

(b) to preside at ceremonial sittings of Parliament;

(c) to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament;

(d)to receive and recognise, and to appoint and accredit Ambassadors, High Commissioners, Plenipotentiaries and other diplomatic agents (g) declare war and peace ;

(e)to appoint as President’s Counsel, attorneys-at-law who have reached eminence in the profession and have maintained high standards of conduct and professional rectitude. Every President’s Counsel appointed under this paragraph shall be entitled to all such privileges as were hitherto enjoyed by Queen’s Counsel;

(f)to keep the Public Seal of the Republic, and to make and execute under the Public Seal, the acts of appointment of the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and other judges of the Court of Appeal, and such grants and dispositions of lands and other immovable property vested in the Republic as the President is by law required or empowered to do, and to use the Public Seal for sealing all things whatsoever that shall pass that Seal;

(g) to declare war and peace; and

(h) to do all such acts and things, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or written law, as by international law, custom or usage the President is authorized or required to do.

Interpretation of Article 33

As anyone can read from section 2 (c) of Article 33, there is no limitations or conditions attached to the powers of the President to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament. There is no other interpretation that could be given, as far as I am concerned.

The section 2 (h) also amounts to some reserved or discretionary powers given even to nominal Heads of State in many democratic countries.

Article 70: Procedure and Powers of the Legislature

Article 70 in full is given below, highlighting in bold what might be most pertinent to this interpretation.

Article 70 (1) The President may by Proclamation, summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament:

Provided that the President shall not dissolve Parliament until the expiration of a period of not less than four years and six months from the date appointed for its first meeting, unless Parliament requests the President to do so by a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Members (including those not present), voting in its favour.

(2) Parliament shall be summoned to meet once at least in every year.

(3) A Proclamation proroguing Parliament shall fix a date for the next session, not being more than two months after the date of the Proclamation:

Provided that at any time while Parliament stands prorogued the President may by Proclamation –

(i) summon Parliament for an earlier date, not being less than three days from the date of such Proclamation, or

(ii) subject to the provisions of this Article, dissolve Parliament.

(4) All matters which, having been duly brought before Parliament, have not been disposed of at the time of the prorogation of Parliament, may be proceeded with during the next session.

(5) (a) A Proclamation dissolving Parliament shall fix a date or dates for the election of Members of Parliament, and shall summon the new Parliament to meet on a date not later than three months after the date of such Proclamation.

(b) Upon the dissolution of Parliament by virtue of the provisions of paragraph (2) of Article 62, the President shall forthwith by Proclamation fix a date or dates for the election of Members of Parliament, and shall summon the new Parliament to meet on a date not later than three months after the date of such Proclamation.

(c) The date fixed for the first meeting of Parliament by a Proclamation under sub-paragraph (a) or sub-paragraph (b) may be varied by a subsequent Proclamation, provided that the date so fixed by the subsequent Proclamation shall be a date not later than three months after the date of the original Proclamation.

(6) Where the poll for the election of the President is to be taken on a date which falls between the date of dissolution of Parliament and the date before which Parliament is required by paragraph (5) of this Article to be summoned to meet, Parliament shall, notwithstanding anything in that paragraph, be summoned to meet on a date not later than four months after the date of dissolution of Parliament.

(7) If 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, he may by Proclamation summon the Parliament which has been dissolved to meet on a date not less than three 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.

Interpretation of Article 70

There are two procedures provided in the constitution in Article 70 in dissolving Parliament by the President.

First is under 70 (1) when Parliament is not prorogued, and in session, where the President may dissolve on the request of Parliament but by a resolution passed of not less than two-thirds of the number of members (including those not present), voting in its favour.

Second is under Article 70 (3) (ii), which provides that at any time while Parliament stands prorogued, the President may by proclamation dissolve Parliament subject to the provisions of this Article (English version).

There can be a speculation as to what it means by ‘subject to the provisions of this Article? Could it mean 70 (1) where it requires a two thirds approval? Or something else? It cannot possibly be about 70 (1) and ‘two thirds majority’ because the Parliament is dissolved. The present dissolution, in other words, is under the circumstances of a prorogation where 70 (1) cannot apply.

In the Sinhala version, what it says is not ‘subject to the provisions of this Article’ but ‘subject to the provisions of this constitution’ (‘me viyawasthawe vidividana valata yatathwa’). It is a general condition and not specific.

Conclusion

Careful examination and interpretation of Article 33 (particularly section 2 (c)) and Article 70 (particularly section 3 (ii)) show there is no constitutional impediment for the President to dissolve Parliament under the conditions of prorogation.

If the prorogation is proved unconstitutional, then it would be possible to prove the dissolution unconstitutional. However as far as I know, no one except Nagananda Kodituwakku has filed a case against the prorogation.

The other rare possibility is to prove that the dissolution is against any other ‘important provision/s of the constitution.’ It has to be quite specific since the provisions permitting dissolution are specific both in Article 33 and Article 70. For this matter, one also has to argue on the basis of the Sinhala version (perhaps the Tamil version).

As far as the scope of this (my) article is concerned, I couldn’t find any specific provision, except Article 33A which says “The President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution…”

However, if this is an overarching and overall limiting condition that the executive President should submit to, then the inclusion of such in the 19th Amendment should have required a people’s referendum. This article co-existed with the powers of the executive President before, and should be the case even today with nuances. Otherwise, our whole constitutional system will collapse and an anarchy would be created.

JVP Stands For Non-Discrimination Of LGBTIQ+ Persons

By Thiyagaraja Waradas –NOVEMBER 13, 2018

Thiyagaraja Waradas

I and a few other representatives belonging to the LGBTIQ+ of Sri Lanka were invited by the JVP (Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna – Peoples Liberation Front) to participate at a public dialogue on the role of intellectuals in democracy in Sri Lanka yesterday (12th of November 2018). JVP has six MPs in the parliament and been part of two insurrections in the country. A party that is largely based on rural, educated Sinhalese vote base is on the move to include larger issues which are not championed by major parties such as the UNP and SLFP.

Recognizing LGBTIQ+ Community

This was the first time that representatives of LGBTIQ+ communities in Sri Lanka have been invited by a political party to join a high level public political dialogue. This invitation came in a situation where LGBTIQ+ community has been demonised and deliberately ignored by the major political parties such as the SLFP and the UNP.

This stance of maintaining a studied silence and deliberately ignoring rights of sexual minorities in Sri Lanka was put in the spotlight with the recent success in decriminalization of non-heterosexual relations in India. The then Minister of Justice, Thalatha Athukorala, claimed in an interview of Ceylon Today news paper that they are yet to receive a formal request to decriminalize. However a subsequent request made by LGBTIQ+ community activists to meet the Minister of Justice and as well as the Chairwoman of the Parliamentary Sectoral Oversight Committee on Women and Gender Dr Thusitha Wijemanna to discuss these issues went completely ignored.

It is in this local context, the invitation to the LGBTIQ+ community by the JVP is of great significance, as it came in a situation where Sri Lankan LGBTIQ+ community was being publicly demonized by President Maithripala Sirisena of the SLFP during his speech in a mega rally on the 5th of November, 2018. President’s homophobic remarks were met with fierce criticism from diverse segments of the society. With the JVP’s progressive stance against discrimination of LGBTIQ+ community in contrast to the homophobic stance of SLFP and UNP, it is a good starting point for a party which attempts to address constituencies who have been historically oppressed.

Call for a broader democratic progressive alliance:

The event was organized by the JVP under the theme of ‘Intellectuals for Democracy’. The event was well attended by many of our colleagues from the universities, professionals such as doctors, lawyers, activists, public servants and the clergy. The entire hall at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute was full leaving only standing room for late attendees. The major call that echoed through all the speeches was to stand and join hands for a broader democratic coalition against authoritarian moves of President Sirisena. Such a broad platform would entails representation of different progressive rights and interests of the larger society. It has been highlighted that producing a counter narrative to overcome the dominant Sinhala Buddhist nationalism is a major challenge for mainstreaming and eventual victory of a political strategy based on democracy. Despite these challenges, party leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, invited all interested parties to join hands for democracy and highlighted the role of intellectuals in fulfilling that mandate.

Over 16,600 families affected by flooding in Batticaloa

13 November 2018

The following is the verdict issued by the Supreme Court on the parliament dissolution gazette when the hearing was taken up before courts yesterday (13).

Twelve FR petitions were filed challenging the President’s gazette notification. ( Sunday Times)

Amicable solution to present crisis paramount

2018-11-14

Last week, when horse-trading was at its peak, we, the Daily Mirror, editorially told that it was advisable now for both the groups in the power struggle to amicably agree upon a process to bring in a new composition of Parliament forthwith, through a fresh election. We had come to that conclusion as the cause of the confused political situation in the country had stemmed mainly from the fact that no political party had the absolute majority in the Parliament to form a government. Both the main political groupings had to coalesce with others who in someway have differences with them.

After the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) withdrew from the United National Party (UNP)-led government on October 26, no party had the capability to form a stable government. Although the UNP could have shown the majority with the support of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the latter was unlikely to join a government formed by the UNP.

Also it was no secret that the new Prime Minister too did not have the confidence of the Parliament. It is unethical and undemocratic on the part of both the parties either to hang on to or grab the power without the necessary numbers. Also it is useless, as such a government cannot pass a single Bill or a motion in the House independently, without giving in to the demands of other parties.

Hence, the best and only option for a stable government was to go for a fresh election. We were of the view last week that political parties must compromise their hard stances in the name of the country and its people and arrive at an agreement to request the President, by way of a resolution of the Parliament, to dissolve the Parliament.

Now that the President has dissolved the Parliament using his executive powers, a new situation is in the making with a new set of problems emerging. The UNP, TNA and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) are preparing to resolve the problem through a legal process.

However, there are only two options left with the country which are not in the best interest of the people, unless the judiciary points out a third one which could resolve the crisis amicably. One is to proceed with the current developments while the other being to go back to the situation that prevailed on November 9 where two groups had been challenging each other to show their majority power in the Parliament.

One option would create a precedence where incumbent or any future President would be able to dissolve the Parliament anytime he or she wished, without considering the four and a half year restriction laid down by the Constitution. The other one would create an immediate chaotic and dangerous situation where the showdown in the Parliament might spill over to the supporters of the two main groups outside, as we pointed out in our editorial last Wednesday.

The current crisis is very clearly a power struggle with extremely selfish motivation of politicians which does not involve the interests of the people at all, despite the groups on either side of the current political divide screaming at the top of their voices that they are fighting for democracy. Besides, with the crisis dragging on, politicians are spreading hatred among the people each minute with their rhetoric which is dangerous.

Unless the politicians cast away their selfish ambitions, at least for the moment, to put their heads together to find an amicable solution which could produce a stable government, they will have to take the responsibility for the repercussions of the current impasse. Surely, “You can use your enormous privilege and opportunity to seek purely private pleasure and gain. But history will judge you,” as Robert F. Kennedy once said.

Sri Lanka’s Judiciary in its finest hour

Our Judiciary has proved itself, true to public expectation, as the people’s last bulwark of freedom. Who says the Yahapalanaya revolution didn’t achieve anything? Can one imagine anything more substantial than the realisation that we have achieved something so important and so momentous for a decent and civilised society? Here, a man holds up a poster outside Hulftsdorp awaiting the ruling by the Supreme Court on Tuesday – Pic by Ruwan Walpola

“We must never forget that the only real source of power we as judges can tap is the respect of the people” –Justice Thurgood Marshall
Momentous Judicial decision

Thursday, 15 November 2018

What a delight to see our Judiciary having come so far away from the days of Mahinda Rajapaksa rule; cleansed from the appalling spell and smell of Sarath N. de Silva and Mohan Peiris! The nation feels relieved that a dangerously developing nightmare has been put to an end.

Sure, the decision isn’t complete and we have to wait for December. Yet, the command to suspend the dissolution is itself something considerable to celebrate. We get to expect that whatever happens in December will be for our society’s good health and that the rule of law will come to stay as the very bedrock of our people’s freedom.

We are out of a bad, bad dream! Our Judiciary has proved itself, true to public expectation, as the people’s last bulwark of freedom. Who says the Yahapalanaya revolution didn’t achieve anything? Can one imagine anything more substantial than the realisation that we have achieved something so important and so momentous for a decent and civilised society?

It is necessary to recapitulate in order to appreciate to what point the Supreme Court decision has brought Sri Lankans.

Rape of justice

Under the Mahinda Rajapaksa decade, Sri Lanka was developing Hitler’s justice. The Chief Justice who cast a qualification on the Divi Neguma Bill of powerful powerbroker and Minister Basil Rajapaksa was impeached with scant respect for legal norms and qualms. Mahinda installed another man on the disgrace line as her successor. That line originated with Sarath Nanda Silva, former Chief Justice who began the destruction of a once great tradition of high quality justice that Sri Lanka enjoyed.

People showed their evident displeasure in 2015 when the draconian regime defined by murder, theft, and a franchised system of corruption was overthrown by the vote. That vote was from 6.2 million people. One of the considerable achievements of the new Yahapalanaya Government was to restore the Judiciary’s independence. This cannot be honestly denied.

Yahapalanaya weakness

With justice restored, the rule of law began to function, once again. That functioned so relentlessly that those of the defeated regime who had serious charges of corruption and criminality were afforded a very patient “due process,” to defend themselves. This was both a strength of Yahapalanaya and its weakness.

It had been a weakness because it rendered adequate space for the “horu,” or rogues to try and break up the new Government. I think a fair criticism of the Yahapalanaya Government is that it should have set up the Special High Courts immediately after they got into reins of office; not wait until three whole years had passed.

Wisdom lost! Regroup and attack

The space offered was gratefully accepted by Mahinda Rajapaksa, his family, and his cohorts to regroup and to attack. The Yahapalanaya Government to date suffered from that tactical lapse. The defeated forces managed to skilfully play mind games on their official enemy, President Sirisena, and persuade the latter to do his second great U-turn.

Sirisena, who tried to conjure up a strong SLFP, faulted and failed to do so. We see all those SLFPers crossing over to Mahinda’s new political party, the Pohottuwa. The SLFP is dead. Will that great conservative tradition set up by S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike to counter the Grand Old Party in a beautiful two-party democracy be cremated? That is the question.

Edifice of Illusion

With successful communication, Mahinda managed to create the delusionary perception among people that he, single-handed, had “won back the country”. On the edifice of that illusion Mahinda and his men worked to abuse every institution in the island.

Those who fail to understand the events of today haven’t comprehended one thing, namely, that Mahinda Rajapaksa grew among musclemen or ‘chandiyas,’ and that that culture is reflected in his persona. Mahinda is far removed from the educated and cultured classes. He is not in sync with anything that is intellectual. As a Minister he achieved nothing. As a president he browbeaten his way to an undeserved collective praise. That is the power of media communication.

Recent political atrocities

If you think I am biased, just reflect on the recent political atrocities that a Mahinda-led evil force have created: They get Sirisena to sack the Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, in sharp violation of the Constitution. That was the first mutilation of the Constitution. Ranil still lives in Temple Trees claiming he never was dispossessed from his position. The political marauders and chandiyas have taken away all Ranil’s security, thus generating an ironic laugh among us who recall how Ranil had afforded even Gota a full complement of security after they lost the election.

The next browbeating was when these marauders got Sirisena to appoint Mahinda Rajapaksa as the replacement for Ranil. The man who lost the election replaced the man who won the election! The third violation of the Constitution was when Parliament was prorogued for as long as a month for no official reason. We all knew this was done to enable the marauding junta to rope in crossovers by bribery and portfolios. Gossip was high when stories spread about huge monetary rewards being offered for a cross-over.

On a daily basis, new ‘ministers,’ were appointed to “fill vacancies,” created by “sackings”. Many of the new ministers were among those under bail over serious court cases. This made the new Cabinet smell like bad fish. Ministers like Professor G.L. Peiris and Sarath Amunugama, who know better, simply went with the flow of the mob. How easy it is to lose your soul and honour! Life is so cheap!

Being thugs, it was easy for the new outfit to force out existing ministers and occupy the seats. The key Government electronic and printed media was seized by the junta marauders by the use of physical feats. Thugs lost no time in capturing Rupavahini and Lake House immediately.

Led by the Speaker Karu Jayasuriya who played an honourable role, the UNP and the rest of the parties demanded that a vote be taken to legitimise the new PM. Despite heavy lobbying the junta boys couldn’t get the required numbers. This led to the fourth violation of the Constitution – when Parliament was dissolved.

Dangerous movement

It doesn’t need much brain matter to realise that Sri Lanka was experiencing a revival of arbitrary rule- operating, as it did, outside the gamut of the Constitution. The country was dangerously heading to lawlessness by stealthy and crooked acts of the junta led by Sirisena and Mahinda. The latter kept defending themselves with holy rhetoric.

Once the framework of the Constitution is broken and ruling thugs take the law into their hands, a new parallel universe of arbitrary rule by whim and fancy gets set in motion. The eventual destiny can only be speculated upon with total apprehension and fear. In the meantime, international support was being withdrawn and the Lankan economy was falling.

Conclusion: Connecting to our Judiciary

My narrative connects with the brave and independent act of the Supreme Court at this point. As Ranil Wickremasinghe stated soon after the judgment, judges of our Supreme Court had been under severe pressure from the junta. One can imagine! Having withstood all that, our judges have won the respect of the people. What a glorious status to be in! The true power-base of the Judiciary is public respect.

The Hon. Michael Kirby, a fellow Justice from here in Australia, said: “A judge without independence is a charade wrapped inside a farce inside an oppression.” Justice Kirby went on: “The alternative to the rule of law is the rule of power, which is typically arbitrary, self-interested and subject to influences which may have nothing to do with the applicable law or the factual merits of the dispute. Without the rule of law and the assurance that comes from independent decision makers, it is obvious that equality before the law will not exist.”

(The writer can be reached via sjturaus@optusnet.com.au.)

Pulling Back From The Brink: The Supreme Court Verdict & Its Implications

By SWR de A Samarasinghe –NOVEMBER 14, 2018

Prof. S W R de A Samarasinghe

Yesterday, November 13 evening, the third branch of government, the Judiciary in the form of the Supreme Court, dealt a blow for Sri Lanka’s fragile democracy when it issued a stay order on dissolving parliament effective until December 07. The Election Commission will suspend all action to hold parliamentary elections on January 5. In doing so the Supreme Court put the country first, as it should. In effect this allows the Speaker to recall parliament.

“Me First”

In sharp contrast, the president, who is the head of the executive branch, has been acting in the last two weeks with impunity, largely in his own self-interest. The legislative branch (parliament) has become an auction house where bribery reigns, cabinet office is available as a bribe for partisan behavior and self comes before country for very many MPs.

Government in limbo

The decision of the Supreme Court is not the end of the threat that has been posed to Sri Lanka’s democracy but may well be the beginning of a more perilous course. The absurd situation of two individuals claiming to be prime minister remains unresolved. The Supreme Court will deliver its final verdict only on December 07th. The general administration of the country remains at least semi-paralyzed with no clear political leadership at the top.

Parliament

The Speaker has called for a meeting of party leaders for Wednesday, November 14th. One can be certain that the UNP, JVP, TNA and the other smaller parties will attend the meeting. But it is not clear if the SLFP and SLPP that now support Rajapaksa would attend. Even if they do they may not be keen for an immediate meeting of parliament because a vote in the House is almost certain to go against Rajapaksa making his claim to the position of prime minister untenable. Such an outcome will also make Srisena’s position very awkward because a week ago he publicly declared that he would not remain in his post for more than a couple of hours if Wickremesinghe were to return as PM.

Power struggle

All the Constituitonal battles are being fought not for the sake of constituitonal propriety but for power. From that perspective the key parties in the fight have seen their prospects change dramatically since Sirisena sacked Wickremesinghe on October 26.

In the first week Sirisena and Rajapaksa appeared to have overcome whatever objections, both local and foreign, voiced against the move. They were prepared to ignore those objections because they believed that large-scale bribery and offer of cabinet positions would induce enough MPs to crossover to assure a majority in parliament. The long-term plan was to have a government for another 12 plus months, hold the provincial council elections to consolidate power, and then go for a presidential election and parliamentary election. It appeared to be a near perfect recipe to establish a Rajapaksa political dynasty, a project that suffered a setback in 2015.

Plans go wrong

But it was soon apparent that even the best-laid plans in politics could go wrong. Rajapaksa was struggling to secure the support of 113 MPs. The first hint came when one of the crossovers, Wijedasa Rajapaksa, asserted that the president can call for a general election if the Vote-on-Account that the new government would present in parliament was defeated. Mahinda Rajapaksa also publicly stated that he would welcome a general election so that the people could decide.

Dissolution

The dissolution of parliament on Friday November 9 took the public by surprise. It is not clear whether Sirisena took the decision unilaterally or he did it in agreement with Rajapaksa. Either way it looked dubious to many. It was also not a part of the script that Sirisena and Rajapaksa had in mind when they embarked on this course of action on October 26.

Shifting public mood

Explainer: Why Sri Lanka is sliding into political turmoil, and what could happen next

The Sri Lankan president’s sacking of the prime minister and installation of a former strongman has left the country in political limbo. M.A. Pushpa Kumara/EPA

This week, Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court made a dramatic intervention in the country’s deepening political crisis, a move that may prevent it from sliding further into democratic dysfunction and possible political violence.

The three-judge panel overturned the unilateral action by Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena to illegally dissolve the parliament last week. The ruling means that parliament could reconvene as soon as Wednesday (November 14).

Jubilant supporters of sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe celebrated the decision outside the heavily guarded Supreme Court building in the nation’s capital, Colombo. It is being seen as one of the most significant rulings in Sri Lanka’s history.

Samantha Power

✔@SamanthaJPower

Supreme Court in #SriLanka has just blocked Pres. Sirisena from dissolving Parliament to push through his proposed new PM - an ex-President credibly accused of war crimes. The institutions in SL are bending but not breaking. Ramped up international pressure is key

NPR

✔@NPR

Sri Lankan Supreme Court Blocks President's Bid To Dissolve Parliament https://n.pr/2DjQa7y

176

4:03 PM - Nov 13, 2018

Twitter Ads info and privacy

58 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

How Sri Lanka got to this point

The Supreme Court ruling is the latest twist in a tense political drama that has engulfed the nation since late October, when Sirisena sacked Wickremesinghe and installed civil war strongman Mahinda Rajapaksa in his place. He then called for a snap election on January 5 - an election now in considerable doubt.

Sirisena cited a conspiracy to have him assassinated as a key reason for his actions. But he had no constitutional basis for either the dissolution of parliament or the removal of a sitting prime minister.

Read more: Sri Lanka: as constitutional crisis triggers fears of 'bloodbath', concern mounts for minorities

The president’s move to dissolve parliament came just days before it was scheduled to reconvene and vote on which of the two men claiming to be prime minister should be actually recognised as holding the job.

Sirisena and Rajapaksa had tried but failed to induce enough MPs to switch sides. Dissolving parliament, however unconstitutional, became their only path to self-preservation.

So… who is the prime minister?

Sri Lanka has a long democratic tradition dating back to British colonial times. It has seen many ups and downs, including a brutal 25-year civil war that ended in 2009 and the rise of an authoritarian-style leader in Rajapaksa (who served as president from 2005 to 2015).

But never before have Sri Lanka’s constitution and its democratic principles been so undermined.

Supporters of Sri Lanka’s ousted prime minister march in Colombo. M.A. Pushpa Kumara/EPA

Since his sacking, Wickremesinghe has continued to claim he is the legitimate prime minister with the support of the majority of parliament.

But Rajapaksa has thus far appeared to have the confidence of the president and key state institutions.

Why was Wickremesinghe sacked?

The possible return of Rajapaksa had ignited deep concerns within Sri Lanka and abroad.

It was only three years ago that his own party split and aligned with the major opposition parties to propose Sirisena as a consensus presidential candidate.

Ironically, Sirisena’s election heralded a new “Yahapalana” coalition government, a term meaning “good governance”. But things did not go according to plan.

Read more: Rajapaksa defeat signals the end of a dynasty in Sri Lanka

Sirisena and Wickremesinghe were unable to work together and none of their key promises were met. Meanwhile, the economy went backwards.

The coalition seemed doomed when local elections in February were dominated by a new party, established by the Rajapaksa family.

The final straw was the alleged assassination plot against Sirisena, apparently involving neighbouring India. The plot was raised in Cabinet, but Sirisena was unhappy with the response and acted by sacking Wickremesinghe, claiming his life was in danger.

It was the policy differences between Sirisena and Wickremesinghe, however, that was really at the heart of the discontent. Sirisena declared that if Wickremesinghe returned, he would “not stay one hour longer”.

So what happens now?

Sirisena initially said he suspended parliament last week to allow his “new government” to appoint a Cabinet and present a budget.

Yet, it was allegedly done to provide enough time for the Rajapaksa camp to bribe MPs to his side. One MP claimed to have recorded Rajapaksa’s henchmen offering him US$2.8 million.

Meanwhile, crowds have taken to the streets in support of each side, while Wickremesinghe has remained holed up in the prime minister’s official residence, surrounded and protected by supporters and fellow parliamentarians. Two people have been killed.

History suggests that Rajapaksa would have succeeded in convincing enough of those who opposed him to switch sides. But this is no ordinary power struggle.

Why is Rajapaksa’s possible return so fraught?

Rajapaksa’s presidency was punctuated by his controversial response to the civil war and abhorrent end of the conflict, which saw tens of thousands of innocent people killed.

His rule was increasingly authoritarian, nepotistic and corrupt. At one point, his family controlled more than half of Sri Lanka’s budget, and he’d succeeded in amending the constitution to grant himself more powers and the prospect of a presidency for life.

Sri Lanka’s civil war strongman Mahinda Rajapaksa has been installed as prime minister by the nation’s president. M.A. Pushpa Kumara/EPA

And this is leaving aside the geopolitical implications of his presidency and possible return to government. Some commentators have portrayed the current crisis as a power struggle between India and China. And it is certainly true that India would prefer Wickremesinghe, and China, Rajapaksa.

Read more: War is over, but not Sri Lanka's climate of violence and threats

During his time in office, Rajapaksa sought Chinese investment to build a major port in Sri Lanka, leaving the country in serious debt. Unable to pay back the Chinese loans, Sri Lanka was forced to hand over the port to China on a 99-year lease.

Given this history, it’s not surprising China was the first of only a few countries to recognise the Rajapaksa prime ministership.

But in the end, this is really about domestic politics. And whatever happens, a return to violence is a real possibility. The Supreme Court’s intervention has stopped Sri Lanka’s democracy going over the cliff for now. But it remains on the edge.

Rajapaksa’s strategy will be to delay a confidence vote in parliament for as long as possible, and to redouble efforts to convene a majority. But if he fails, he may be tempted to use force to get his way, and Sri Lanka’s democratic deficit will become a gaping chasm.