PM alleges judicial coup against Parliament  Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

By Saman Indrajith-July 7, 2016

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya is expected to give a ruling on the ratification of the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in Sri Lanka.

The government and Opposition after arguing on the question of ensuring people their rights through constitutional means agreed to refer the matter to the Speaker.

Deputy Speaker Thilanga Sumathipala promised that he would bring the matter to the notice of Speaker Karu Jayasuriya.

UNP MP M. H. M. Salman said Sri Lanka had acceded to first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1997. In the same year the Government of Sri Lanka recognized the competence of human rights committee to receive and consider communication from Sri Lankan citizens.

"Assurances of the yahapalana government must include responding to communications that are brought to the attention of Sri Lanka by the Human Rights Committee in terms of the Protocol and action which Sri Lanka deems appropriate upon a consideration of the views expressed by the Committee. However, it appears that the government is neither responding to communications brought to its attention by Human Rights Committee nor taking action in response to views expressed by the Committee. What is the position of the Government of Sri Lanka on this?" .

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe: The government led by President Maithripala Sirisena took immediate measures following the Presidential Elections in 2015 to fulfil pledges that we had given to the people. good governance, rule of law, human rights, transparency, and accountability remain the cornerstones of the national unity government’s policy and vision. In keeping with this policy and vision, the government informed the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights in 2016 of continued participation in the communications procedure of the UN Human Rights Committee. It is our firm belief that engaging with all human rights mechanisms, including the UNHRC established under the ICCPR constitutes the correct approach. In the view of the government, the basis for Sri Lanka’s participation in the communications procedure of the UNHRC continues to remain. The government has the political will and ability to consider the options of the UNHRC and conveys responses and observations to the committee in terms of the policy of openness and constructive cooperation with UN human rights mechanism. The government intends to devise a timeline and appropriate approach to responding to pending communications from the HRC.

"I hold the firm view that responding to communications from HRC also follows from the fundamentals of our international engagement. That is projecting Sri Lanka as a responsible nation in the international arena and pursuing action towards achieving the said goals is accordingly in order. The government, therefore, reconfirms the continued validity and applicability of the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and is firmly committed to implement its provisions.

"The Supreme Court in Singarasa case agreed that the government of Sri Lanka had set out the correct legal position which stated its responsibility to the HRC as follows. "The Constitution of Sri Lanka and the prevailing legal regime do not provide for release or retrial of a convicted person after his conviction is confirmed by the highest appellate court. Therefore, the State does not have the legal authority to execute the decisions of the HRC to release the convict or grant a retrial. The government of Sri Lanka cannot be expected to act in any manner which is contrary to the Constitution     

"In my view it is nothing but an attempt by the judiciary to usurp the powers of both the legislature and the executive. The obiter dicta of the Supreme Court violates Article 3, 4 and 27 (2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court does not have the power to violate the basic tenants of the Constitution which unfortunately the SC had been doing in the last decade. The judicial power of people is not exercised by the Supreme Court but by Parliament through courts or directly by Parliament. A decision of this nature can only become law if passed by Parliament with a two thirds majority of the House and approved by a referendum. The courts that have followed the obiter dicta have violated the Constitution. This is a judicial coup against Parliament and sovereignty of the people. Instead of confining itself to the matters before it, the court has meandered into a total irrelevant area and made pronouncements on the Constitutionality of competence of the President to accede to the Optional Protocol. This I believe something that should be left to the Speaker of Parliament in this instance and I ask the Speaker after necessary consultation to give his ruling on this matter.

MEP Leader Dinesh Gunawardena: The Prime Minister has today given an opinion and requested the chair to give a ruling on a very important judgement on the Constitution of Sri Lanka which has been delivered by the Supreme Court. We would like to have a debate on what the Prime Minister replied to the House before the Speaker gives a ruling on it. This is a very serious issue.

Prime Minister: The Speaker should give the ruling after the necessary consultation and that could also mean the expression of views by the members of this House. I am happy that the MP has agreed with me that the jurisdiction on this rests with Parliament and not with the SC. All I am trying to do is to take away the SC acting as a dictator and bringing it into Parliament. How can Article 3, 4D and 27 (2)A be run off by the obiter dicta of the SC. Our rights are taken away and we have been made prisoners. I think it will be interesting to have that debate. We have to reverse this trend. Anura Bandaranaike has given a ruling. You cannot have SC get around his ruling in other ways. This can also be a breach of privilege of the House.

Because of this look at the number of jobs that were lost. If we had this by now you would have had far more jobs in the country. This is a national crime.

The Deputy Speaker said the matter would be referred to the Speaker.

MP Gunawardena: After about 20 years you have come to parliament and made a new opinion on the judgment delivered. That is a procedure that has not been followed by any Prime Minister.  

Prime Minister: I have not come with this opinion after 20 years. I continuously said it. Powers of Parliament cannot be taken away by SC as and when they like it.