Colombia signs historic peace deal with Farc

President Juan Manuel Santos and rebel leader Timochenko sign new accord despite objections that derailed original deal

Juan Manuel Santos and Timochenko shake hands during the signing of the new peace agreement. Photograph: Luis Robayo/AFP/Getty Images

Sibylla Brodzinsky in Bogotá and agencies-Thursday 24 November 2016 

The Colombian government and leftist Farc rebels have signed a revised peace agreement to end more than 50 years of conflict, despite continued objections by many who rejected the original deal in an October referendum.

“This is the definitive one,” said president Juan Manuel Santos, who was awarded this year’s Nobel peace prize, after signing the deal on Thursday with Farc leader Rodrigo Londoño, known as Timochenko.

Londoño hailed a deal that will enable Colombians “to definitively end the war and confront our differences in a civilised manner”.

The accord will immediately be sent to Congress. It is expected to pass after being debated next week, as the government’s coalition and allied parties hold a majority in the legislature.

The signing ceremony, at Bogotá’s small but lavish Colón theatre, lacked the pomp and much of the optimism of the original signing in the colonial city of Cartagena on 26 September.

‘It’s the start of the construction of peace’: Columbians react to peace treaty – video

Just days later, voters shocked peace deal promoters and detractors alike by rejecting the agreement. Among a host of other objections, critics said it was too soft on guerrilla commanders responsible for war crimes and rewarded them by allowing them to run for public office .

The outcome of the vote sent the peace process into a tailspin and negotiators back to the drawing board. They presented a new agreement on 12 November, with modifications to more than 50 points.

Opponents of the peace deal maintain that the most crucial points are still unresolved, including eligibility for public office of those convicted of war crimes. “The issues that most worried us about the agreement are still there,” said Samuel Hoyos, a representative of the Centro Democrático party of former president Álvaro Uribe, who has led opposition to the peace process from the start.

Uribe said other critics of the peace deal had wanted to see further revisions before it was signed, yet they had been disregarded. But political analyst Alejo Vargas, of the National University, said there was no more room for negotiation and that the critics would never have been satisfied.

“No peace agreement would have been good for them because they are playing politics with it, with a view to the 2018 presidential elections,” he said.

The government and Farc fear delayed implementation of the deal could jeopardise any possibility for peace to take hold.

After the results of the referendum in October, nearly 7,000 Farc fighters who had been ready to begin demobilisation found themselves in legal and operational limbo. A ceasefire that came into effect on 29 September was extended but became more fragile by the day.

Two guerrillas died on 16 November in a clash with government troops – details of which are still unclear – and at least five land rights activists and leaders of leftist social movements were killed over the course of four days last week.

Santos said the attacks on civilians were evidence of the risks of not implementing the peace deal. “Every day that passes there is a risk of new incidents,” the president said. “Lives have been lost and there are many more at risk.”

Once congress approved the new deal, Farc would begin its process of demobilisation, he added. “In 150 days all of the Farc’s weapons will be in the hands of the United Nations,” Santos said. “Farc, as an armed group, will have ceased to exist.”

But after such a bumpy road to peace, some Colombians are receiving the new deal with more resignation than jubilation.

A few blocks away from the theatre where the ceremony was held, only a small crowd of Bogotá residents had gathered to watch the signing on large screens set up on the Plaza de Bolívar.

Alberto Ortega, who is in his 70s and has lived through much of the country’s violence, waved a small white flag. “It’s about time,” he said.

India says to stop over-the-counter exchange of old currency notes

A man displays 500 Indian rupee notes during a rally organised by India’s main opposition Congress party against the government's decision to withdraw 500 and 1000 Indian rupee banknotes from circulation, in Ajmer, India, November 24, 2016. REUTERS/Himanshu Sharma

Thu Nov 24, 2016

India will stop over-the-counter exchange of old currency notes, which were made illegal earlier this month, after midnight on Nov 24, the country's finance ministry said on Twitter.

Earlier this month the government withdrew large denomination notes in an attempt to uncover billions of dollars in undeclared wealth.

Those with old notes will still be allowed to deposit them into their bank accounts until Dec. 31, but not permitted to do outright exchanges.

Foreign citizens will be permitted to exchange foreign currency up to 5,000 rupees ($73) a week, the ministry said.

The government had permitted various exemptions for certain transactions where payment could be made through old 500 rupees and 1,000 rupees notes. These exemptions, with some additions and modifications, will continue until Dec. 15.

($1 = 68.7553 Indian rupees)

(Reporting by Aditi Shah)

Calling for the Release of Maria Chin Abdullah, Chairperson of BERSIH2.0

- Nov 23, 2016

We, the May18 Memorial Foundation and the Laureates of the Gwangju Prize for Human Rights, are deeply alarmed by the detention of Maria Chin Abdullah, the Chairperson of BERSIH2.0 by the Malaysian Police. BESIH2.0 is the 2016’s Laureates of the Gwangju Prize for Human Rights presented by the May18 Memorial Foundation.

We are aware that Bersih2.0 is an organization which is engaged in a legitimate struggle to establish free and fair elections, clean government, and the right to dissent. The rally on 19 November, 2016 to campaign for the above-mentioned objective was completed peacefully without any violence and with the support of a large gathering. It is regrettable that the Malaysian Government raided the office of BERSIH2.0 the day before the rally and arrested Maria, and Mandeep Singh, the Secretariat Manager of BERSIH2.0, and other activists. While some of those who have been arrested have been released, Maria Chin Abdullah is being held in detention under the Security Offences Special Measures Act (SOSMA).

As persons committed to the promotion of democracy and human rights, we are gravely concerned about the grave obstacles placed in the way of Malaysians who demand clean and fair elections and clean government which are basic rights guaranteed to all citizens in a democratic society.

We also wish to express our concern over the appalling conditions of solitary confinement under which Maria is being detained. Such detention violates the dignity and the rights of citizens.

1. We, therefore call upon the Malaysian Government to immediately take the following actions for safeguarding the rights of all who are engaged in demanding their right to participate in the political affairs of their country.

Release the detained Maria Chin Abdullah, the chairperson of BERSIH2.0, immediately.
2. Stop the harassment and oppression immediately on BERSIH’s activists and their supporters.

3. Unconditionally guarantee the right to assemble and dissent and other basic rights and freedom that are enshrined in the constitution.

4. Take all steps necessary to ensure free and fair elections and good governance in Malaysia.

A Joint Statement
Calling for the Release of Maria Chin Abdullah,
Chairperson of BERSIH2.0

Community role in tackling wildlife trafficking often ‘overlooked’ – conservationists

 24th November 2016 

THE role of local communities in combating illegal wildlife trade is largely overlooked as those involved in the effort often use other approaches to tackling the issue, said the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

During the Hanoi Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade in Vietnam recently,  IUCN said it believes this is overlooked given the current emphasis on law enforcement responses and demand reduction efforts.

“Poaching and wildlife trafficking are extremely complex issues and are direct factors causing the extinction of many endangered and rare species,” said Aban Marker Kabraji, the Asia Regional Director of the IUCN. 

“Such activities are adversely affecting natural resources and rural communities, generating huge profits for international crime syndicates, and contributing to increased public health risks.” she continued.

The illegal wildlife trade has long been a bane in the Asian region and with that in mind, global leaders in the effort to tackle the illicit activity came together at the conference on Nov 17 and 18 to discuss ways to eradicate the illicit trade and ensure effective protection of endangered wildlife from imminent threats of extinction.

The IUCN, one of the organisations present at the meeting, hopes to help find pragmatic solutions to the world’s most pressing environment and development challenges, while insisting that local communities must play a role in helping combat wildlife trafficking.

IUCN President, Zhang Xinsheng at the conference © James Tallant IUCN

IUCN president Zhang Xinsheng said the union is currently carrying out science-based research and collating the information in order to enhance the understanding of the conditions under which community engagement against illegal wildlife trade will work, as well as how to capitalise on it.

 “With an improved understanding of enabling conditions and incentives, we will be able to provide guidance and technical advice to stakeholders, and further promote opportunities for engaging local communities in combating illegal wildlife trade,” he said. 

Zhang reiterated the response to this global threat is varied and complex. 

“…Comprehensive and realistic approaches are needed across the entire trade chain, including preserving wildlife populations and habitat, sustainably managing legal trade, curbing poaching, strengthening legislation and enforcement, preventing illegally traded wildlife from crossing borders, and reducing demand for illegally traded wildlife in consumer markets,” Zhang said

“IUCN calls on donors to support surveys and population assessments for animal and plant species that are known, or thought, to be seriously impacted by illegal killing and trade,” added Zhang.

Zhang met with Vietnam’s Minister for Natural Resources and Environment, Dr. Tran Hong Ha, to discuss the Green Climate Fund proposal as well as cooperation with the Vietnam Administration of Seas and Islands.

SEE ALSO: Thailand: 90 percent of tiger farms and private zoos may be involved in black market 

Zhang also met with Vietnamese Vice Minister of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ha Cong Tuan, and had several meetings with various IUCN Members at the IUCN Vietnam office to discuss collaboration opportunities, as well as IUCN’s 2017 – 2020 Inter-sessional Programming.

IUCN places major emphasis on the importance of science-based data on the status of species and populations.

“The recently published IUCN African Elephant Status Report 2016 was used by Parties at the 17th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES to inform decisions on the conservation and management of Africa’s elephants,” Zhang also said.

Jake Brunner, Head of the IUCN Indo-Burma Group, said the conference reaffirms high levels of international support for combating wildlife crime.

“The challenge now is for the region’s governments to translate this support into effective enforcement of national laws,” Brunner said.

Predatory bacteria can wipe out superbugs, says study

Bdellovibrio can munch on other species of bacteria

By James Gallagher-24 November 2016

Predatory bacteria - that eat others of their kind - could be a new weapon in the fight against superbugs, say UK researchers.

Experiments showed a dose of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus acted like a "living antibiotic" to help clear an otherwise lethal infection.

The animal studies, published in Current Biology, suggested there would be no side effects.

Experts said the approach was unusual, but should not be overlooked.

Fear of an antibiotic apocalypse, caused by growing levels of bacteria resisting the drugs, has led to scientists trying other approaches.

Bdellovibrio is a fast-swimming bacterium that works its way inside other bacteria where it devours its hosts' insides and swells in size.

Deadly dose

Once it has finished feeding it replicates and bursts out of its now dead host.

The team at Imperial College London and the University of Nottingham tried using Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus to kill a common cause of food poisoning.

Shigella bacteria make 160 million people ill each year, and more than a million die, largely through contaminated food.

Tests in a laboratory dish showed the predatory bacteria caused the population of superbug Shigella to collapse 4,000-fold.

Further tests in fish larvae showed a deadly dose of the superbug led to only 25% surviving for three days.

But when the fish larvae were also "infected" with the predator, survival soared to 60%.

Dr Serge Mostowy, from Imperial College London, told the BBC: "It is definitely a creative approach and what is special is the inability of the host to develop resistance."

He added: "It's an important milestone in research into the use of a living antibiotic that could be used in animals and humans."

'Looming threat'

However, the researchers believe Bdellovibrio could be more useful in treating infected wounds, rather than those that have spread through the body, as the predatory bacteria can be easily injected into the site.

Far more safety testing is needed before using Bdellovibrio therapeutically could be attempted.

The researchers noticed the predatory bacterium worked best in conjunction with the fish's immune system.

Prof Liz Sockett, from the University of Nottingham, said: "It seems that the Shigellapathogens are evading the immune system, but when Bdellovibrio is there it is releasing broken parts of Shigella and that is giving extra signals to the fish that it should be dealt with."

Bdellovibrio has been shown to kill a range of bacteria including E. coli and Salmonella.

The researchers said there were no signs of side effects and that the fish could tolerate very high levels of Bdellovibrio. The predatory bacteria have been found naturally living in our bodies by other researchers.

Dr Michael Chew, from the Wellcome Trust medical research body, said: "It may be unusual to use a bacterium to get rid of another, but in the light of the looming threat from drug-resistant infections the potential of beneficial bacteria-animal interactions should not be overlooked.

"We are increasingly relying on last-line antibiotics, and this innovative study demonstrates how predatory bacteria could be an important additional tool to drugs in the fight against resistance."

Follow James on Twitter.

SRI LANKA GOVT PUT FORWARDS DISCUSSION PAPER FOR MEDIA STANDARDS AND ENTITLEMENTS

Image: Media activist in Sri Lanka at a press freedom campaign.

23/11/2016

The government has published a discussion paper on media standards and entitlements in Sri Lanka.

The government has invited media organisations, owners and publishers associations, journalists’ unions and associations, civil society organisations and members of the public to express their views on this proposal.

The discussion paper follows:

A free, independent and diverse media with high ethical standards and professional competence, dedicated to provide a wide range of information and ideas to citizens, while serving as a public forum for well-informed democratic dialogue, is indispensable for the building and maintaining of democracy in Sri Lanka. The government is committed to creating an enabling environment for the media sector which is based on respect for internationally recognised professional standards and practices, and which ensures media accountability to those who rely on the media as a credible source of news and information.

The government has examined the comprehensive assessment of the overall environment for media development as set out in the report Rebuilding Public Trust: An Assessment of the Media Industry and Profession in Sri Lanka, which was presented to the Hon. Prime Minister on 3 May, World Press Freedom Day, 2016 by the multi-stakeholder partnership for media reforms. The report contained a set of evidence-based recommendations developed through a multi-stakeholder consultative process and based on UNESCO’s widely accepted Media Development Indicators.

Similarly, the recently concluded International Conference on RTI Sri Lanka and Media Reforms also deliberated several challenges of the media sector while making some cardinal recommendations.

Some of the key recommendations of the report as well as the international conference require the adoption of enabling legislation. Based on this, the government wishes to undertake a consultation with all interested stakeholders on the measures needed to provide adequate legal protection for journalists and to strengthen systems for media self-regulation.

The government is ready to ensure legal protection for freedom of the press, including by protecting the media’s right to gather news and information, by repealing the Sri Lanka Press Council Act, No 5 of 1979, and by introducing an independent oversight mechanism to foster professional standards, with mandatory powers over media outlets.

In this regard, the government invites the views of interested stakeholders in relation to its proposals to introduce legislation:

1. To recognise media freedom and the right of the media: (a) to gather and disseminate news and information; (b) to engage in critical reporting on matters of public interest; and (c) to participate in the process of forming public opinion.

2. To make it a penal offence for anyone willfully to obstruct the legitimate collection of news and information by a journalist working for a media outlet.

3. To put in place systems to promote the safety of journalists.

4. To protect journalist’s right to not to disclose their confidential sources of information.

5. To make it a penal offence to subject anyone to any legal or employment related sanction or otheroformoof discrimination for providing information to journalists working for a media outlet concerning public affairs or on matters of public interest,except where the secrecy of the information is justified by a larger public interest.

6. To make it illegal to impose sanctions on or to terminate the employment of an editor or a journalist because of his or her refusal to violate recognised professional codes of practice.

7. To establish an independent Council with a mandate to develop and apply codes of practice for media outlets, based on internationally recognised standards for the media.

The proposed Council will function as the oversight mechanism of a system of self-regulation and will the power to apply sanction for wilful violations of its codes of practice. The approaches towards ensuring the independence of the Right to Information Commission will also be applicable to the Council, which will comprise eminent persons of whom two-thirds are nominated by organisations representing the media and journalists and one-third are nominated by civil society organisations.

To ensure the credibility of and the public confidence in the Council, a Judge of a court of law nominated by the Judicial Services Commission in consultation with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka will serve as Chairperson. The tenure of Council members will be protected and, in particular, removal will only be possible by vote of Parliament following a recommendation of the Constitutional Council.

The functions and powers of the Council will include the following:

a. Adopt professional Codes of Practice,following a public consultation involving journalists’ and editors’ associations, media unions and civil society.

b. Monitor the performance of media outlets to ensure due compliance with the Codes of Practice.

c. Hold inquiries into alleged violations of the Codes of Practice based on complaints or the monitoring of the Council,and issue decisions.

d. Conduct public consultations to assess the public perception of media outlets’ compliance with the Codes of Practice.

e. Maintain a database o

f information on registered media entities.

f. Co-operate with or undertake training and educational activities, including by producing training materials on the effective implementation of the Codes of Practice.

g. Exercise powers which are similar to those wielded by the Right to Information Commission in terms of conducting inquiries, with provisions for appeals to the courts against the Council’s decisions.

h. In terms of sanctions, the Council will have the power to issue warnings to media outlets and to order a media outlet to publish or broadcast the Council’s decision in the manner prescribed by the Council.

i. Mediate between employers and employees of media outlets in relation to disputes concerning the enforcement of the Codes of Practice.

The proposed legislation will be applicable to all print and broadcast media outlets, as well as to online media outlets which formally agree to comply with the Codes of Practice.

It shall be an offence for any media outlet to refuse to comply with or to give effect to a decision of the Council, which may be punished by the imposition of a fine after a summary trial before a court of law. Similarly, obstructing the legitimate collection of news and information by a journalist, forcing a journalist to disclose a confidential source of information or discriminating against a journalist who refuses to violate the Codes of Practice will be offenses.

The government invites media organisations, owners and publishers associations, journalists’ unions and associations, civil society organisations and members of the public to express their views on this proposal. Please send your views in writing to the address given below before 31st December 2016.

Director General – Government Information Department

(On behalf of the Secretary to Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Mass Media)

No 163, Kirulapana Mawatha,
Colombo 05.

Email :ranga@dgi.gov.lk
Fax: 0112514753

November 23, 2016

Constitutional Assembly: Analysis of Centre-Periphery Relations Report - Part I

November 23, 2016, 12:00 pm 

"What is remarkable is that in discussing the devolution of power in a situation where the existing system of devolution was based on the Indian model, the entire report of the Subcommittee on Centre-Periphery Relations has not mentioned India even once!"

By C. A. Chandraprema

The Provincial Governor

The report submitted to the Constitutional Assembly by its Subcommittee on Centre-Periphery Relations focuses on several areas such as the role of the provincial Governor, and the fiscal, administrative, land and police powers of the provincial councils. What the subcommittee report says about the institution of the provincial governor is plain and direct as follows: "The present powers of the Governors are excessive and should be curtailed. The Thirteenth Amendment and the Provincial Councils Act No. 42 of 1987 vests a multitude of powers to the unelected Governor to intervene, control and regulate the executive and legislative functions of the provinces. The position of the Governor with such powers represents central dominance in the province..."

The subcommittee has observed that according to the Constitution, the executive power of the Provincial Council is exercised by the Governor. The Chief Minister and the Board of Ministers are only supposed to ‘aid and advise’ the Governor in the exercise of his functions and the Governor, in turn, is supposed to act in accordance with such advice except in circumstances where he is required to exercise certain functions at his discretion. In the exercise of these functions, the question whether any advice was tendered to him, and if so the nature of such advice, is not a matter which can be questioned in any court. In the event that a dispute arises as to whether any matter is or is not a matter in respect of which the Governor could act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor shall be final and the validity of such decision cannot be called in question in any Court.

In the subcommittee’s opinion, this gives the Governor unfettered power in the exercise of executive functions of the Provincial Council. Article 154C of the constitution provides that the Governor shall exercise executive power ‘either directly or through the Board of Ministers or through officers subordinate to him’. The term ‘officers subordinate to him’ refers to the officers of the Provincial Public Service. The subcommittee observed that hence, the provincial executive does not even have power over its public officers who are expected to implement the decisions of the Board of Ministers. The provincial public officials are obliged to comply with directives of the Governor and as such, they cannot be expected to be loyal to the Provincial Executive. As a result, the Secretaries of the Provincial Ministries, who are to carry out the executive functions as directed by the respective Ministers, have been controlled by directives from the Governors. There have been instances that the Governors were insisting on their prior approval being obtained even to conduct a training programme!

Provincial Governors’ powers

Moreover, a statute cannot be even introduced into the Provincial Council for its consideration without the recommendation of the Governor if such statute has financial implications. Every statute made by a Provincial Council shall come into force only after that statute receives the assent of the Governor. The Governor can return the statutes to the Provincial Council without assent and recommending reconsideration on the grounds that one or more of the provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution. The Subcommittee on Centre-Periphery Relations has rhetorically posed the question: ‘The President at the national level does not have this power with regard to the enactment of laws by Parliament. Why this at the provincial level?’

If the Provincial Council enacts the statute without incorporating the recommendations of the Governor and sends it back for his assent, it is not compulsory for the Governor to grant his assent. If he does not agree with the statute, the Governor has to forward it to the President to refer it to the Supreme Court for a determination on the constitutionality of the statute. However, the 13th Amendment did not provide a time limit within which the President should forward it to the Supreme Court. As a result, whenever the Governors were of opinion that certain provisions of the statutes were inconsistent with the constitution; such statutes have not been subjected to the procedure for the determination of constitutionality as laid down in the constitution.

The subcommittee also observed that the Provincial Councils Act vests the Governor with powers of appointment, formulation of schemes of recruitment and codes of conduct, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of officers of the provincial public service. Although there is provision for a Provincial Public Service Commission this body too functions under the Governor who appoints the members of that body. The Governor has the power to alter, vary or rescind any appointment, order of transfer, or dismissal or any other order relating to a disciplinary matter made by the Provincial Public Service Commission. Accordingly, the Governor’s power in this regard is analogous to that of an appellate body. It is evident from these provisions that the authority to control public servants of the province is vested in the Governor. The provincial Governors thus enjoy power which even the President of the country does not exercise with regard to the public officers at the centre.

Subcommittee lost its bearings

The Subcommittee has recommended that the above stated powers of the Governor be abolished and the Governor be made a nominal head, who should be constitutionally required to act on the advice of the Chief Minister and Board of Ministers, except in so far as he is constitutionally required to act at his discretion. They also recommended that the requirement of the Governor’s assent for statutes passed by the Provincial Council be done away with and the present parliamentary practice of a bill being declared an Act of Parliament upon receiving the Speaker’s signature be adopted in respect of the Provincial Councils with the Chairman of the PC signing the statutes passed by the Provincial Councils. The Subcommittee recommended that such statutes could be subject to judicial review by a Constitutional Court which they have recommended be set up. They have also suggested that even if the Constitutional Court has ruled in favour of the constitutionality of a Bill in pre-enactment review proceedings, that should not be a bar to subsequent post-enactment review proceedings.

It was further recommended that the power of the Governor in relation to statutes that have financial implications should be repealed and the approval of the Board of Ministers deemed sufficient for introducing financial bills in the provincial council. The subcommittee recommended that while providing for a nominal office of Governor, the provisions relating to the central government’s power to bring a provincial government under direct rule for any actual or threatened break-down of law and order in the province, should be strengthened. However, such decision should be subject to judicial review by the constitutional court within a specified period. The subcommittee clinched their argument for dismantling the powers of the Governor by stating that in a situation where the elected Executive Presidential system is being dismantled in the country, it does not make sense to perpetuate what they called an ‘executive governor’ system - unelected at that - in the provinces!

In the report they submitted to the Constitutional Assembly and the recommendations they made, it is quite clear that the Subcommittee on Centre State Relations has acted as if they were discussing the executive powers of sovereign nations instead of provincial administrations in a sovereign nation. Under the provisions of the 13th Amendment, the provincial Governor is the principal figure who acts as the link between the central government and the provincial administration. The provincial councils system in our country was based on the Indian model and the powers and role of provincial Governors in our constitution is almost exactly the same as that of state Governors under the Indian constitution and if there is any divergence, that is only because the Indian state Governors have even more powers that our provincial Governors.

Everything that the Subcommittee on Centre- Periphery Relations has objected to in the role of the provincial Governor – the fact that the executive power of the State is vested in the Governor, that he will exercise these powers either directly or through officers subordinate to him, that the council of ministers exists only to ‘advice’ the governor in the exercise of his functions, that no one can question a decision made by the governor regarding any matter requiring his discretion, that no court can question whether a Governor acted in accordance with the advice given to him by the Council of Ministers, that all executive action in the state is taken in the name of the Governor, that laws passed by the state legislatures take effect only when the Governor signs them, that the governor can send the Bills back even after they are passed while recommending changes, that if his recommendations are not carried out the governor can withhold his ascent and refer the matter to the president; etcetera, etcetera, are all the same in the Indian constitution as well.

The Indian constitution

In India, the states which function under Governors empowered by such provisions are much larger than most nation states in the world. Indeed the whole of Sri Lanka is comparable to some of the smallest states in India. In India, the Haryana state which has a population of over 26 million qualifies for only five out of 233 Rajya Sabha seats. If we were a state of India, we would barely qualify for four seats in the Rajya Sabha. In such a situation a subcommittee appointed to look into devolution in Sri Lanka has come up with a proposal that is a blueprint for nine independent states. If one removes the powers the provincial Governor has at present, there is nothing to stop the provinces from becoming independent states. To cap it all, the Subcommittee on Centre-Periphery Relations has recommended that even after taking away all the above mentioned powers of the provincial Governor, he should be appointed only with the concurrence of the chief minister of the province.

This will enable every chief minister in Sri Lanka to appoint one of his stooges as Governor and do just as he pleases. What is remarkable is that in discussing the devolution of power in a situation where the existing system of devolution was based on the Indian model, the entire report of the Subcommittee on Centre-Periphery Relations has not mentioned India even once! The Sub committee has recommended doing away with the existing powers of the provincial Governor in a situation where some of the most important safeguards available to the central government in India vis a vis the states have not been given to the central government in Sri Lanka by the 13 th Amendment. In India, parliament has the power to legislate on any matter on the ‘state list’ if two thirds of the members of the upper house of parliament - the Rajya Sabha - present and voting pass a resolution approving such intervention.

The Rajya Sabha is made up of representatives of the Indian states according to a constitutionally mandated formula. What this means is that in India, if the representatives of the states feel that intervention is necessary in a certain state, parliament can override the state legislature in that state and pass legislation on any of the powers reserved for the states. Such intervention will last one year after which it can be renewed for so long as is necessary – even for perpetuity. (Article 249 of the Indian Constitution) This is one of the most important provisions designed to safeguard the Indian union. Note also that the majority needed is two thirds of those present and voting – not two thirds of the whole number of members. Thus in India, the Hindi speaking northern states can mandate intervention in a separatist southern state if necessary. But such a safeguard does not exist in Sri Lanka.

In India, one of the most important safeguards that the centre has is the ability to impose ‘President’s rule’ on a state if necessary. What happens in such circumstances is that President takes over the executive functions of the state with its legislative functions being taken over by parliament – in which event parliament in turn can empower the president to make laws for that state. In India, every such proclamation will have to be approved by parliament within two months and will last up to six months and this can be continued for up to three years with approvals being granted by both houses of parliament once every six months with simple majorities.

In Sri Lanka, however, any imposition of president’s rule on a province has to be approved by parliament within fourteen days and can last for two months with a maximum period of one year if the resolution is approved by parliament once every two months. Thus we see that even though our system of devolution is based on the Indian constitution, we don’t have the same safeguards as the Indian central government. It is in such circumstances that the Subcommittee on Centre-Periphery Relations is suggesting that we do away with the powers of the provincial Governor. In India, the report of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre State Relations of 1988 observed in relation to the position of state Governor that it functions as a ‘bridge’ between the centre and the State and that the Governor is the ‘sentinel’ of the constitution. If Sri Lanka is to remain as one country after this constitutional reform process is over, the institution of provincial Governor should not be touched. It should on the contrary be strengthened.

Tomorrow: Land, police, fiscal and administrative powers

Statue of assassinated Tamil MP Raviraj unveiled

21 Nov  2016

A statue of the former Tamil MP and human rights lawyer, N Raviraj who was assassinated 10 years ago this month was unveiled in Chavakachcheri on Sunday. 

The official unveiling ceremony was attended by a number of Tamil politicians including the leader of the Tamil National Alliance, R Sampanthan, and other TNA MPs. 

Mr Raviraj, a former TNA MP, was assassinated along with his driver in Colombo. 

No one has been sentence for the crime despite a decade passing. 

A witness in an inquiry into the assassination of Mr Raviraj earlier this year alleged Sri Lankan navy intelligence officials were involved. 

The witness, Sampath Prithiviraj, said the officials associated with the navy intelligence office in Gangarama had planned the killing.

In July six men, including three former Sri Lankan navy personnel have been indicted. Three men absconded the proceedings, including two paramilitary men with Karuna's group.
 

Related Articles: 

10 years, no justice for assassination of Tamil MP Raviraj

SRI LANKAN CONSTITUTIONAL PANEL RECOMMENDS GRANT OF POWERS OVER LAND AND POLICE TO PROVINCES

Image:Sri Lanka police are entirely under the Central government.

By PK Balachandran | Express News Service |-23/11/2016

COLOMBO: The Sri Lankan Constitutional Assembly’s sub-committee on Center-Provincial relations has recommended that the provinces be granted powers over land and police; that the powers of the provincial Governor be drastically pruned, and that there be a fair allocation of financial resources to the provinces along with powers to decide how to spend the money.

As a matter of fact, the 13 th.Amendment of the constitution carried out in 1987 following the India-Sri Lanka Accord, had devolved powers over land and police to the provinces. But this was not implemented.

The constitution sub-committee under the chairmanship of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP, D.Siddharthan, has now recommended that all State Land (or government lands) in a province should come under the purview of the provincial administration though the Central government may requisition land for the propose of executing projects on matters under the Central List.

Likewise, the police in a province should come under the Provincial Administration and they should be regulated by a Provincial Police Commission (again as stipulated under the unimplemented 13 th Amendment).

The sub-committee said that the Concurrent List should be abolished and that there should only be a Provincial List and a Reserved (Central) List to avoid confusion and arrogation of powers by the Center.

The panel wants the provincial Governor to go entirely by the advice of the Chief Minister and his Board of Ministers and not be an agent of the Center which, he or she is, now. The power to control the provincial officers and determine what statutes should be passed by the Provincial Council should be taken away from the Governor.

Since only one of the nine provinces of Sri Lanka (namely the Western Province) is financially sound, the Center should not only give adequate funds to the provinces but also leave it to the provinces to decide how the funds should be spent. At present, the Center not only allocates the funds, but also specifies in detail how they should be spent. Though there is a Finance Commission to determine allocations to the provinces, the President often over-rules its recommendations. The panel has sought an independent Finance Commission with representatives of the provinces in it.

At present there is a stipulation that provincial schemes should conform to the relevant National Policy. The sub-committee has recommended that the provinces should be given the right to participate in the formulation of a National Policy.

The sub-committee has skirted the controversial issue as to whether Center-Provincial relations should be based on the federal or the unitary model. While the minority Tamils have been agitating for a federal constitution, the majority Sinhalese want the present unitary system to continue. The sub-committee’s recommendations envisage devolution of power but without labeling the overall scheme as either federal or unitary.

NIE

Constitutional reform and devolution of power

by Harim Peiris-November 23, 2016

The current Sri Lankan Parliament sits as a Constitutional Assembly to rework Sri Lanka’s basic law and social contract in a nation building exercise, which is an opportunity that was created through the ending of our long running civil war. The process adopted by the Constitutional Assembly was to create a steering committee which included all the parties represented in Parliament. The steering committee, was in turn divided into six sub committees each tasked with a different thematic area to study and report. Earlier this week, all six sub committees submitted their reports to the Constitutional Assembly.

This particular milestone in the constitutional reform process is an opportune time to reflect on Sri Lanka’s prior attempts at constitutional reform and perhaps its key component, the devolution of power. There is certainly a consensus among Sri Lanka’s ruling class, that the current constitution has some serious flaws which needs to be rectified. These areas have been the executive presidency, the electoral system and devolution of power. While there is little principled or political dissension regarding the first two, the issue of devolution of power gets caught up in the ethnic divide in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lankan polity currently has almost thirty years of experience with the system of devolution of powers established by the Thirteenth Amendment to Sri Lanka’s unitary constitution. It was under the Rajapaksa presidency and during the war, that the All-Party Representatives Committee (APRC) and the APRC Experts Committee worked through much of the glitches which ailed the provincial councils and came up with the plans and amendments which would make provincial level decision making meaningful.

The recent Conference of Provincial Councils and the publication of its proceedings,which brought together a representative cross section of provincial politicians, officials and civil society actors, showed a remarkable interest on the part of provincial councillors and the provincial administrations on making devolution meaningful and substantive. While at a certain level, this can be dismissed as the usual parochial focus in one’s own interest, the fact that many provincial councillors go on to become parliamentarians, demonstrate a close link between the community and provincial administrations. The key issues which come up in discussions on devolution are around the themes of centre-province relations, fiscal and financial arrangements, public service and administration, legislation and process support.

The deliberations of the provincial councils brought out the two key issues which always arise––land and police powers. In all prior political conclaves on devolution including the Mangala Moonesinghe Parliamentary Committee, the Kumaratunga Administration’s devolution proposals of 1994, the constitutional reform proposals of 2000 and the APRC, the general consensus has been that land powers should be made representative and devolved fully to the provinces. On the potentially more vexatious issue of police powers, the emerging technical solution has been for both a provincial and national police service, with serious crimes which should be dealt more appropriately at the national level, being done so,whereas the provincial police can deal with all other minor functions including traffic policing. Such a mechanism would ensure a more citizen-friendly, community based and hence accessible and effective police service throughout the country.

The politics of

the devolution debate

The current constitutional reform process has two stated objectives. The first and considerably less controversial objective is to increase the democratic spaces and features of Sri Lankan society. The second objective of the constitutional reform is to make those communities currently experiencing exclusion and hence alienated the Sri Lankan state, mainly ethnic and religious minorities to be included. This objective is also expressed as dealing with the causes of the decades long conflict, of creating a sense of inclusion in minorities currently feeling excluded from the State and rectifying what constitutional lawyer and LTTE suicide victim, late Dr. Neelen Tiruchelvam so aptly described as the "anomaly of imposing a mono ethnic state on a multi ethnic polity".

Sri Lanka has three, not two competing ethnic nationalisms––the Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim. The end of the armed conflict considerably reduces or eliminates the risk of armed secession from the state and, accordingly, the current National Unity Government of the two major parties is generally confident that it has a sufficient consensus among and of the majority community on constitutional reform and devolution.

Political insiders strongly anticipate and indeed expect that this thesis would be tested by the political opposition, the newly formed SLFP offshoot, the Sri Lanka Progressive Front of the Rajapaksa wing, though nominally headed by G. L. Peiris (no kinsman I hasten to add), which is likely awaiting the constitutional reform proposals to try and whip up political opposition to the same.

But the real decider on devolution is likely to be the rather unpredictable and unwieldy Muslim polity, which solidly backed the Sirisena/Wickramasinghe combine in both January and August last year. The Muslims have a predominant presence in Eastern Sri Lanka and the consensus which the TNA needs to craft is not solely what is acceptable to the Sinhala Southern polity but also to the Muslim polity predominating in the East. Such a consensus is not an impossibility and the remarkable exercise of the Parliamentary Constitutional Council has indeed created an inclusive and participatory process. As the sub-committee reports are submitted and considered by the Constitutional Assembly as a whole in the near future. It is hoped for Sri Lanka’s sake and shared future, that a consensus is forthcoming.

(The writer is Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The views expressed in this article are personal).