The Possible Different Scenarios
Mass Usuf
There are two decisions currently pending in the Courts. Firstly, the petition challenging the validity of the gazette notification in relation to the dissolution of Parliament and, secondly, the action instituted by way of a Writ of Quo Warranto.
This column will explore the implications based on the possible outcome of the different scenarios. An understanding of the outcomes is considered important because as citizens, we are duty bound to ensure the continuation of the institution of democracy.
Interim period
If the dissolution of parliament gazette is held valid. The Parliament will stand dissolved. Then elections will follow. Something of concern at this point is regarding the period between dissolution and the swearing in of the new government post-election. The constitution states in Article 18. (1):
“The Cabinet of Ministers functioning immediately prior to the dissolution of Parliament shall notwithstanding such dissolution continue to function and shall cease to function upon the conclusion of the General Election …. “
At the time of going to press, there is no functioning Cabinet of ministers to run the affairs of the state because there is a pending case. If the court decides that the present government is without authority, there obviously will be no Prime Minister and a Cabinet of Ministers. In this case, the president has to immediately appoint a prime minister and a cabinet of ministers in consultation with the Prime Minister.
At present, the President has publicly declared that he will not appoint Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister. The flip side would mean that he is prepared to appoint any other. To emphasise his reluctance in making such an appointment, the President said at the SLFP convention that even if the entire 225 members of the parliament unanimously approve his Premiership, he would still not appoint Mr. Wickremesinghe.
Two legal issues stem from this (1) the President by implication accepts the need to appoint a prime minister. (2) His refusal is a violation of the constitution and the sovereignty of the people.
Analysing point (1) above, there is acquiescence on the side of the President regarding the need to appoint a prime minister. From this, it becomes clear that this position paves the way for two other possibilities –
(a) the President accepts the appointment of Mr. Rajapakshe as not valid or,
(b) he accepts that the No Confidence Motion passed in the parliament on 14th and 16th as valid.
Is the President’s position not to appoint Mr. Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister sustainable? Let’s make a wild assumption. Elections are held and UNP wins. Will the President then also say he will not appoint Ranil as PM? This type of behaviour is unconstitutional and should not be allowed to take precedence. It may invariably lead to a dictatorial or arbitrary rule.
With regard to (2) above namely that the President is in violation of the constitution and the sovereignty of the people. This has four more implications.
