Mangala explains the New tax scheme amended 111 times - a great boon for the country ! (video)

(Lanka-e-News - 23.Aug.2017, 5.40PM)   The new Inland revenue tax bill dispenses with the indirect imposition of tax  on the ordinary people that had been  the cause of escalation of  the cost of living , and aims at directly taxing those who are earning  high incomes , is to be tabled in parliament on the 25 th . 

After the bill was first tabled in parliament , 111 amendments including those made by  the Supreme court  have been incorporated in it, minister of finance Mangala Samaraweera  revealed at a media briefing on 21st

In Sri Lanka , it is only as small as  20 % is direct taxation and is on   the government revenue  while the balance 80 % is constituted of indirect taxes collected from consumer goods of people . However in Malaysia it is the converse. There, indirect tax is 20 % and direct tax of 80 % is collected from those generating income. In India too it is  similar. Under the proposed new tax scheme those generating an income of Rs. 1.2 million per year are exempt from tax , while the rest have to pay direct taxes. By that the indirect taxation on the people can be dispensed with . 

This taxation is a great boon to the country . . Hence everybody  who shows true concern for the proletariat will not oppose this scheme. But , if this scheme is still opposed , it is only money launderers who will do that , the minister asserted. 

Deputy foreign minister Eran Wickremeratne also participated in this media conference.

The video footage is hereunder 

---------------------------
by     (2017-08-23 12:20:22)

DELAYS IN LEGAL SYSTEM, RULES OF LAW AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

 

 

 

2017-08-23

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

Hon William Gladstone said in the frequently used adage in the legal circle that “Justice Delayed is Justice denied” which is applicable to the justice system worldwide. [We inherited English legal principles of presumption of innocence and application of Rule of Law which means to act according to the existing legal framework, everyone should be treated equally before the law. Some of the main guiding principles of our legal system, the world has rated high despite isolated dark spots which are common worldwide in all jurisdictions].

• AG’s Dept. is overloaded with work with less staff
• Some murder cases are dragged for over 20 years!
• politicos earn Rs. 3.1bn on illegal selling of vehicle permits

The criminal and civil procedure, evidence ordinance and most of the legislation in practice in Sri Lanka are imported from the British and applied with subsequent amendments which are alien archaic and complicated to us using a foreign language. In addition we are muddled with the Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim personal laws and Roman Dutch Law on property matters. Citizen is suffering from the time the foreign legal system is introduced, in which one of the classic examples of miscarriage of justice is the story of “Silindu” in the story “Baddagama” by the historian Leonard Wolf about a case in deep down south “Walasmulla” in which the justice was meted with the foreign language at the cost of the innocent villagers life and freedom which is continuing in everyday in the maize of litigation every day.  

Some murder and rape cases have taken decades when a child rape victim gives evidence after 15 years and murder cases take sometimes 20 years when the witnesses are dead and the productions have gone missing

Laws delays are worldwide and common to any jurisdiction. Law Society Gazette in the UK complaints of a backlog of 63,000 appeals pending and Vinod’s case in India of the rape and murder of a 5-year-old child took 22 years with 36 witnesses with ample similar examples in Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka there are land/partition cases that run to decades and generations. In Sri Lanka the hearing of a rape victim and the murder sometimes takes 15 to 20 years on average. In the history of Bribery cases only a few have been successful so far despite the enormous funds pumped and they are hardly heard in the media. Laws delays are frequent in western jurisdictions despite modern trends and sophisticated equipment with sufficient funds to the mechanism on delivery of justice.

Best mechanism was introduced to Sri Lanka by the act No. 44 of Administration of Justice Act introduced by Felix Dias Bandaraneike who was unpopular among the legal profession for the ground breaking reforms to expedite the justice system that was thrown away by the legal profession headed by the eminent lawyer Dr. H. W. Jayawardna Q. C. brother and the advisor to then President JR Jayewardene continuing the system to benefit the privileged legal profession for exploitation of the litigant directly responsible for laws delays, with other parties concerned mentioned in this article. No short cuts as the solution. The Nation needs drastic legal reforms with honest and genuine legislators. Or perish together.  

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION ENGULFED THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND OTHER BODIES LIKE CANCER

Bribery and corruption are cancerous rampant and all over as breath and air in the system more deep rooted in the administration of justice and the court system where anything is possible with bribe. Some citizens are litigants who had no faith in the legal system, took the law into their hands in resolving disputes. Criminal procedure and the system are still complicated with the dependence of peace officers, statutory bodies such as the departments offering technical support, AG’s Department is overloaded with work with lack of staff and facilities.

It is a known fact that some partition/land/criminal with appeal cases has taken generations despite steps taken to speedy completion. Some murder and rape cases have taken decades. When a child rape victim gives evidence after 15 years and murder cases drag for 20 years, the witnesses are dead and the productions had gone missing. These are not isolated cases as it is the order of the day in the day to day procedure which is in the public domain.

As a test Bribery Commission was rejuvenated by appointing  Dilrukshi Wickramasinghe - an energetic personality with lot of hopes and enthusiasm, and a Commission was appointed to inquire into corruption by the previous government with an honest and experienced secretary in Lacille de Silva. The fate of both officers are still fresh in memory of the citizen who always at the receiving end. This proves what bribery and corruption are to weak governance and inefficiency.

The recent two cases are trivial on two asserts cases of Duminda Silva and Sarana Gunawardena subjected to the fine of Rs 2,000 with no other harm

The recent two cases are trivial on two asserts cases of Duminda Silva and Sarana Gunawardena subjected to the fine of Rs 2,000 with no other harm. Today we have the most corrupt Parliament Mafia working together having forgotten party politics to earn money collectively by illegally selling vehicle permits at enormous profits with the loss of 3.1 billion to the citizen and more to be exposed. Activist lawyer Nagananda Kodittuwakku has filed a case against 100 MPs in the Supreme Courts when Ravi Karunanayaka has resigned for a short while, on the Mahendran/Aloysius scam the citizen is conversant with and continuing.

Now the alleged wealth accumulated by the former President and the Waseem Thadueen murder involving the former’s wife is one of the main issues in the field of Bribery and Corruption. All well known to the public despite the VAT and Bond Scams the highest public robberies from the citizen in the decade which is still not resolved when the culprits are enjoying their accumulated wealth apparently in Dubai.  

WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT BRINGING OFFENDERS TO JUSTICE WITHOUT DELAY?

Fingers are pointed at Minister of Justice, Attorney General, Legal Profession, Bribery Commissioner, Legal System, inefficiency of the establishments, lack of political will of the Minister to identify the Bribe takers and punish them outside special procedure by setting up special courts and procedures adopting new and special legislation and special procedure. A group of agitated members of the legislature have made the main accusation to the Minister and AG’s department they believe are inefficient and do not do enough to bring the suspected members of the last regime accused of bribery and corruptions by a group of legislatures of the ruling party. Minister’s response to the agitated colleagues is simple, logical, legal and convincing. He said to the party group and the public that, he is bound to adopt the due process, and to act legally and constitutionally based on the guidelines and articles of the supreme law the citizens are bound to.

Judicial power is exercised through courts Article 4-(c) created and established by law, and all persons are equal before law Article 12(1) and No citizen shall be discriminated against on the grounds of political opinion 12(2) nor can subject to disability, restriction and every person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. Article 13(5), and the mode of appointments of the judiciary is enshrined in the 1978 Constitution and the 19th Amendment adopted in hurry and haste which requires many changes is in the implementation process.  

Today we have the most corrupt Parliament Mafia working together having forgotten party politics to earn money by illegally selling vehicle permits at enormous profits with the loss of 3.1 billion to the citizen and more to be exposed

Chief Justice is the head of the judiciary and the AG is the advisor to the state expected to be independent and impartial towards the citizen depending on justice and fair play. President of the Bar Association is the leader of the “Unofficial Bar” who plays a pivotal role in the process of delivery of justice with the legal profession acting as officers of courts assisting the Judiciary and the citizen. The Ministries and departments supporting the process as necessary appendages of the delivery of justice is expected to be steady, just and impartial.

Delivery of justice is a combined operation/process of all the necessary parties led by the Chief Justice and the judiciary who has control over the management of the Law College, disciplinary actions of the lawyers and the judiciary giving directions to the other judges with the cooperation of the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice which indicates that the process is complicated and the role played by the Minister is merely complementary and facilitation providing resources and assistance with no powers on the main process. Therefore finding fault on the AG and the Minister is illogical.
 
The writer could be reached on Sarath7@hotmail.co.uk 

 

Special Situations Demand Special Solutions

By Mass L. Usuf –AUGUST 23, 2017

Mass Usuf

President Mandela, referring to the South African legal system had said, “God’s Mill grinds slow they say, the pace of the South African Legal System puts even the God’s Mill to shame.” Is Sri Lanka any better?

All lawyers are aware that a party in default in a tenancy case can remain in possession of the house by prolonging the case for various reasons. This is between two individuals. It is also known that it takes on an average ten years for a criminal case to be concluded. That our legal system grind slowly is not a new discovery. This is a phenomenon that the Hon. Minister of Justice is aware of from his days in the Law College and as a legal practitioner.

Actions which are not normal like embezzlement of enormous amounts of State funds, money laundering, unjust personal enrichment, white collar crime, kidnapping, murder, organized and other sophisticated crimes are special situations. The government should marshal the resources necessary to implement and execute special situation transactions quickly, effectively and smoothly.

Common sense dictates that it is not prudent to burden an already overloaded court with crimes falling into these categories. It becomes the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to effectively and efficaciously respond to this exceptional circumstance.

Resources

At the ceremonial sitting of the Supreme Court to welcome the new Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, His Lordship said, among other things, “There is a need to increase the number of judges and develop the infrastructure by constructing more court houses. There is a backlog of cases in the Supreme Court and in the High Court. There is an urgent need to increase the number of Supreme Court and High Court Judges.

The court management system could be improved using modern technology. Computerisation, office automation and adopting electronic filing system will improve the court management. New methods should be adopted for court and case management. Countries like Singapore and Malaysia were able to reduce the backlog of cases by using modern technology and management systems. The judges should divest the administration functions to registrars or designated officers so that they will have more time for court work. The courts cannot function without an efficient and a competent staff. Supporting staff plays an important role in management of the courts. The quality and the standards of the supporting staff should be improved.”

The Attorney General’s department is no different. If they are short of staff and expertise provide these cadres. Why has the Justice Minister not taken steps expeditiously to remedy this situation? If he claims to have done something over the past two years, then it is clearly inadequate. Without gentlemanly admitting the inadequacy, he seems to evade responsibility by politicising the issue.  He speaks about not taking political revenge or not interfering with the independence of the judiciary. Mr. Minister the public never asked you to take political revenge or interfere with the judiciary.  What they clearly want is for you to do your job as Minister of Justice. What has improving the efficiency of the court system got to do with taking political revenge or with interference with the judiciary?

Clear Alternatives

As a consequence of this failure, the people who are seeking justice for the atrocities, corruption and misappropriation of public funds by certain suspects are becoming restless. Is the government waiting until the people come out to the streets and cause havoc? Why is the Minister of Justice dilly dallying without creating or facilitating the environment for the justice system to work smoothly? 

One of the Four Universal Principles of the rule of law as defined by the World Justice Project is :

“Accessible and Impartial Dispute Resolution: Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are accessible, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve”.

The alternatives are clear. The cases can be handled by:\

Read More

Sri Lanka: Can foreign judges be avoided?

Marapana cannot afford to ignore a fresh review of the contentious matters, including the circumstances under which Resolution 30/1 came to be after Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative, in Geneva, Ambassador Ravinatha Pandukabhaya Aryasinha, on Sept. 21, 2015, strongly opposed the same at an informal session called by the Core Group pursuing the matter. The group comprised the US, the UK, Montenegro and Macedonia.

by Shamindra Ferdinando-Aug 23, 2017

( August 23, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) One time Attorney General and newly appointed Foreign Affairs Minister Tilak Marapana, PC, on Friday (Aug 18) declared that the 1978 Constitution wouldn’t permit inclusion of foreign judges in the proposed domestic Judicial Mechanism (JM) under any circumstances.

Sri Lanka Can foreign judges be avoided.docx by Thavam on Scribd

New hope with a new Foreign Minister?

By SANJA DE SILVA

JAYATILLEKA-August 22, 2017, 8:46 pm 

The new Foreign Minister has assured us, according to the Daily News, thatResolution 30/1 which was co-sponsored by the Unity Government of Sri Lanka "was in no way harmful to the country…" The Island of 19th August 2017 reports that the new Minister had said that he had "examined" this resolution as member of the cabinet, and that it "was certainly not inimical to Sri Lanka’s interests..."Since he was also the former Attorney General, he must know what he is talking about.

In this context, one would expect that he would have no concerns in facing either the written update at the 37th (March 2018) session of the UNHRCby the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zaid al Hussein, as per the Human Rights Council Resolution 34/L.1,in which it "Requests the Office of the High Commissioner to assess progress on the implementation of its recommendations and other relevant processes related to reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka…", nor the written report to be followed by a discussion on the implementation of 30/1 at the 40th session.

Before the new Foreign Minister examines the High Commissioner’s oral update however, one hopes he resolves certain contradictions between his statement after taking over as Foreign Minister that the Sri Lankan Constitution does not permit foreign judges and the provisions actually contained in the resolution that he describes as "harmless".

Before going any further, it must be pointed out that the "harmless" Resolution 30/1 was not co-sponsored by a single Asian country (other than Sri Lanka).Not even India. Since no vote was taken due to the new practice of co-sponsoring all resolutions on Sri Lanka by the Unity Government, this is the only indication one can glean of the actual support of the Council. The 13 co-sponsors however paint a picture: only 8 voting members of the Human Rights council (Albania, Germany, Latvia, Montenegro, Macedonia, UK, Northern Ireland and USA), while the other 5 were only observers (Australia, Greece, Poland, Romania, and of course Sri Lanka).

Why is this important? When a country co-sponsors a resolution, it is assumed that it is satisfied with the content. And the new Foreign Minister has confirmed that indeed the Govt was. We can assume that he considers it "harmless" then, the operative paragraph 18 of the resolution which requests the High Commissioner to assess progress on his recommendations, which includes his call to all 193 members of the United Nations to use the concept of Universal Jurisdiction to prosecute those whom he has declared with certainty have committed War Crimes. While the Sri Lankan Constitution may not allow foreign judges, Universal Jurisdiction by definition certainly comes under the purview of foreign judges—certainly "foreign" to Sri Lanka

Another example is Operative Paragraph 1 in which it welcomes the OHCHR investigation on Sri Lanka and encourages the GoSL to implement its recommendations. Paragraph 88 of theOHCHR investigation report says:

"The High Commissioner remains convinced that, for accountability to be achieved in Sri Lanka, it will require more than a domestic mechanism. Sri Lanka should draw on the lessons learned and good practices of other States that have succeeded with hybrid special courts, integrating international judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators."

They are, for sure,honorable men (and women), in the Unity Government. But would you co-sponsor a resolution on your country which had these paragraphs? And what of the paragraph 6 that welcomes the proposal of the Government of Sri Lanka to "establish a judicial mechanism with a special counsel" and "affirms...the importance of participation of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorized prosecutors and investigators" ?

Usually, country specific resolutions are not co-sponsored by the country concerned. The Unity Government set a new trend. If they wanted to do so, why would they not negotiate the text? We can only assume that as declared by the new Foreign Minister, that they were perfectly satisfied with it or at least viewed it as "harmless".

Consider the alternative scenario in which this was contested by the Sri Lankan government. Since our Constitution bars foreign judges etc., it would be perfectly within the bounds of reason to oppose paragraph 6 and to introduce amendments keeping it in line with our Constitution, since we were planning to co-sponsor it. In doing so, it is possible that the other co-sponsors wouldn’t agree to our amendments. If we felt strongly enough, we could try to garner support from the rest of the 39 voting members who did not co-sponsor the resolution to support our amendments. If there was a stand-off, this would go to a vote. If enough voting members supported us, we could get the amendments in.

There was a seriously good chance we could do this. The very next resolution taken at the same sessionof the UNHRC was called "Human rights and unilateral coercive measures", moved by Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. A preambular paragraph states:

"Expressing its grave concern that the laws and regulations imposing unilateral coercive measures have, in some instances, an extraterritorial effect not only on targeted countries but also on third countries, in contravention of basic principles of international law, in a manner that will coerce the latter also to apply the unilateral coercive measures."

The operative paragraph 3 states: "Condemns the continued unilateral application and enforcement by certain powers of such measures as tools of political or economic pressure against any country, particularly against developing countries, with a view to preventing these countries from exercising their right to decide, of their own free will, their own political, economic and social systems."

This resolution, moved by Iran on behalf of the Nonaligned Movement, won with a record 33 votes‘for’, zero abstentions, and 14 ‘against’--being the countries of the EU, Japan, South Korea and the USA.

The point I am making is that the Western movers of Resolution 30/1 had no moral hegemony at the Human Rights Council to guarantee a winning vote. It was a chance Sri Lanka could and should have taken, at least to keep it in line with our Constitution as it stands.

But we didn’t even try. The co-sponsoring started as soon as the Unity government assumed power. The texts were not negotiated adequately. Why? Was the Govt. worried that the people of Sri Lanka would see that it didn’t quite have the support of the "international community" that they boasted about, in case it lost a vote? Or was the new government of one mind with the countries that moved the resolution?

One is inclined to think it’s either both or the latter because of the indignity contained in the preambular paragraph in Resolution 30/1 which says "Welcoming the historic free and fair democratic elections in January and August 2015 and the peaceful political transition in Sri Lanka". Historic? Anyone sitting in the Council who wasn’t familiar with Sri Lanka, would not imagine that we had democratic free and fair elections since 1947! And never were they other than peaceful transitions!

Of course one can’t predict if the restrictions on foreign judges would apply in a new or amended Constitution (endorsed by a new Minister of Justice).

The latest academic work to appear on Sri Lanka, titled ‘Push Back: Sri Lanka’s Dance with Global Governance’ by Judith Large (Zed Press, London Dec 2016), which is scathing in its criticism of the Sri Lanka, refers repeatedly to the Darusman and Petrie Report. At the time the Darusman Report appeared (2011), the then Sri Lankan government decided not to contest its findings, in a convoluted logic which sought to prevent "giving it legitimacy". The result of course is that those two reports are invoked by scholars and resolutions alike. With no immediate refutation by the GoSL, its weak responses later seems to have had no effect. The Marga Institute carried out an excellent study and published a reasoned criticism which the government of the day did not use! Resolution 30/1 refers to all the previous resolutions that were lost by the previous regime, not because it did not oppose them but because it didn’t have the faintest idea how to do so successfully.

That government’s entire strategy and conduct of diplomacy was woefully inadequate to convince the voting members of their case. It however hasthe dubious distinction of having tried, succeeding spectacularly once, then changing the team’s captaincy and losing 3 times after that. Were the selectors to blame? I would think so.

When the previous government lost Resolution 25/1, no Asian country voted for that Resolution either. Russia, China, Pakistan, Cuba, Vietnam, Maldives were among the countries that voted against it. India abstained, with South Africa, Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines among the 12 abstentions. The resolution was won by 23 votes, mostly Western. We fielded the wrong team.

The last resolution on Sri Lanka at the UNHRC recalls the resolutions of March 2012 to March 2014 that Sri Lanka lost, and requests the High Commissioner to assess progress on their recommendations as well as resolution 30/1. This too was co-sponsored by Sri Lanka with Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Japan, Montenegro, Norway, Sri Lanka,Macedonia, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Again, only 5of the sponsors of the resolution were voting members of the Council.

Wasn’t there a better way? We await a closer (re)examination of the conduct of diplomacy at the UN Human Rights Council by the new Foreign Minister and the State Minister, in the national interest of Sri Lanka and its citizens.

*********************************************************************

[The writer is author of ‘MISSION IMPOSSIBLE-GENEVA: Sri Lanka’s Counter-Hegemonic Asymmetric Diplomacy at the UN Human Rights Council’, to be released by Vijitha Yapa late this month.]

No Justification for Wijeydasa Rajapakshe to Remain in Cabinet

There is no question that the way the discussions were held at the UNP meeting against WR cannot be condoned. In addition to the aggressive manner that he was cornered and questioned, he was not probably given a fair chance to express his views.

by Laksiri Fernando-Aug 23, 2017

( August 23, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is becoming extremely difficult to trust politicians whether it is Ravi Karunanayake, Tilak Marapana, Wijeydasa Rajapakshe (WR) or Rajitha Senaratne. The latter is stuck to SAITM, while others have exposed various other abusive business links. Many other dubious characters from the SLFP side are at present lying low as they don’t hold much of the reins of the present government. Among all the issues, the present key one is undoubtedly about WR.

There is no question that the way the discussions were held at the UNP meeting against WR cannot be condoned. In addition to the aggressive manner that he was cornered and questioned, he was not probably given a fair chance to express his views. The Deputy Minister Ajith Perera should take the main blame for this hostile behaviour as reported in many newspapers. If he is incapable of controlling his temper he himself should leave politics. He has demonstrated this character many times in open TV forums before. What is at issue here is internal democracy of political parties without coercion.

No Confidence

However, in view of the no-confidence resolution unanimously passed at the UNP Working Committee and its parliamentary group, there is no justification for the Minister WR to remain in the Cabinet any longer. He is in the Cabinet only as a member of the UNP in the national unity government. If the party does not have confidence in him, more so is the country or the people. Only some members in the Joint Opposition would like to keep him there to create trouble to the government. On many of the current issues in the country, his views have become very close to or supportive of the ousted Mahinda Rajapaksa regime.

WJ has been a controversial minister for some time now. His major business implication was related to the Avant Garde affair, along with Tilak Marapana, who was the law and order minister of that time. Marapana resigned but WJ didn’t, although Marapana is now appointed as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Although WJ denied any connection to Avant Garde chairman, Nissanka Senadhipathi, there were many reports confirming his close relationship with the person and possibly the company.

WJ earned some popularity and liking being the Chairman of the parliamentary watchdog COPE. However, even that time there were some criticisms that he was rather soft peddling on some issues while pursing others. Nevertheless, his resignation from the Mahinda Rajapaksa government in 2006 and his support for Shirani Bandaranayake against the impeachment in 2012 earned him a reputation as a rebel politician. During that time, he was also serving as the President of the Sri Lanka Bar Association. In that capacity, he was instrumental in mobilizing the public opinion, among other civil society organizations, which culminated finally in the dramatic political change in 2015 that is popularly named as ‘yahapalanaya’ both truly and sarcastically.

As a Minister

After he was appointed as the Minister of Justice and Buddhist Affairs, he became controversial as he advocated the reimplementation of capital punishment as a deterrent against increasing crime in the country. While occasionally the President himself had expressed similar views, WR’s views were more vociferous and consistent in insisting the implementation. On this and many other matters, his views were quite conservative and detrimental to the internationally accepted norms on human rights and justice issues.

He was vociferously clamouring against crime, but not against corruption. Similarly, he was soft peddling on torture. It is true that the issues of torture, administered particularly by the police, came directly under the Minister for Law and Order. However, as the Minister of Justice, the cases against torture could have been expedited under his supervision or advice, and not interference. This is a matter that he has expressed a strange ‘hands-off’ attitude which effectively makes him redundant as the Minister of Justice.

WJ has recently revealed that he is still a practicing lawyer apart from his duties as a minister. This is a matter which is not acceptable for good governance. Apart from conflicting priorities and time constraints, there can be serious conflict of interest. A minister should be full time, and not part time or pastime.

It is possible that he has done a good service as the Minister for Buddha Sasana. That could be one reason why many monks are behind him even on the present controversy. This is apart from the most political Asgiriya prelates. WR has had a habit of making most of his controversial pronouncements before the Mahanayakes. It is because of these close links that one could suspect that even the recent Sangha reaction against a New Constitution is something that he has instigated.

Corruption Investigations

It is a well-known fact that corruption investigations against the persons in the last government are unnecessarily delayed. A similar situation exists in respect of major crime investigations such as Lasantha Wickrematunge assassination or Thajudeen killing. It is difficult to say who was intentionally delaying these investigations and there can be many reasons for the delays. Obviously, the Attorney General’s Department is overwhelmed by many complicated cases and prosecutions in addition to the High Courts. The Department also can be under resourced.

There have been accusations that the present government is also not very keen in pursuing these cases for various reasons. There are ministers who were members of the last government who could be directly or indirectly complicit in some of these corruption cases or abuses. There are accusations even against the Prime Minister, according to reports, who do not like to completely discredit the Rajapaksas both for personal and political reasons. He would, it is alleged, like to keep the rift between the SLFP alive for his own political benefit by the next elections.

But from a citizen’s point of view, WR’s utterances and role as the Minister of Justice on corruption matters have been quite dubious. There was no reason otherwise for him to repeatedly say that ‘the President, the Prime Minister or him as the Minister of Justice cannot ‘interfere’ with the independence of the Judiciary or the Attorney General’s Department.’ No one has been asking him or the government to interfere with the judiciary. That is completely out of the question.

However, he is the Minister who is supposed to oversee the AG’s Department. If there were new laws required, he should have been the person who should have initiated them. In Australia, the title Attorney General itself for the Minister. In both Australia and Sri Lanka, AG is the chief legal officer to the government. As the website of the Department (in Sri Lanka) explains, “The Attorney General is the Chief Legal Advisor to the Government.…He conducts prosecutions in criminal cases and appears on behalf of the Government.”

Of course, under Section 111C (1) and (2) of the Constitution, interference with the judiciary is an offense. Independence of the judiciary is also guaranteed by Section 107. However, AG’s Department is not the judiciary. Even there is no special place given in the Constitution for the Attorney General, like for the Auditor General. This is said without any prejudice to the present AG or his Department. What the country wanted was a reasonably speedy procedure for the corruption cases and it was up to the Minister of Justice to look into the matter.

There were constructive ways that this could have been done, or still could be done. The Attorney General’s Department is structured with several divisions and units. Some of the divisions are on civil, criminal, supreme court, state attorney’s etc. Similarly, there are units on public petitions and child protection. What the Minister could have ‘persuaded’ the Department (if he was so concerned about interference!) was to open a division or at least a unit for corruption cases and expedited the matters. He has not done so. Instead he has been politicking on the subject quite detrimental to the public expectations.

Hambantota Issue and WR’s Future

It is possible that the stand that WR took on the Hambantota port issue, after an agreement was signed between the Sri Lanka Ports Authority and the Chinese company, approved by the Cabinet, was completely a ‘goodbye’ to the government. On this matter, he came very close to the Joint Opposition and the other Rajapaksas.

There is no question that the Hambantota port has been a controversial issue not only under the present government but during the past government as well. It was obvious that when the port was constructed, its main rationale was placed within the ‘one belt one road’ project of China. There is nothing principally wrong in Sri Lanka linking up its development efforts with both China and India. The concern however should be not to undermine the country’s interests to the interests of foreign countries or companies. Mutual benefit or a ‘win-win’ situation should be the objective. Foreign investments or projects should be in a moderate fashion and to the benefit of the country and the people. If someone is arguing that Sri Lanka should develop itself without any outside assistance, investments, aid or trade, that is quite primitive to say the least.

I have not seen WR expressing his views when the deal was being discussed in the country quite openly. The mistake on the part of the promoters was both conceptual and factual. When it was said that it is a ‘debt-equity swap,’ it was conceptually wrong. Based on that mistaken premise, when over 50 percent shares were given to the Chinese company for 99 years, it was practically disadvantageous. However, these are matters that there should be some bipartisan policies as much as possible.

As the agreement is now signed, what the country should try to achieve is the best possible outcomes through the present deal pragmatically. It could be hoped that the newly appointed National Economic Council could look into this and similar other matters. Therefore, in that context even WR’s opposition to the Hambantota deal cannot be considered genuine or beneficial to the country. To oppose or sabotage the Hambantota project would be against the interests of the country and the people.

WR has openly stated that he knows many of the ministers in the present government indulging in corruption. Therefore, he is duty bound to expose them for the benefit of the country and good governance. If he has left or rebelled against the government on that basis, he could have come out of the government as a people’s hero or as a progressive. However, his record has been to undermine the corruption investigations and not to promote them. Therefore, he remains extremely an unreliable political character.

As his party, the UNP, has resolved no confidence in him, as an appointee of the UNP in the national unity Cabinet, he should gracefully resign. He has no other (birth) right to remain in his ministerial position. Otherwise, he would be making a mockery of democracy. Only if he is stubbornly refusing to do so, the President would be compelled to remove him.

Wijeyadasa to resign?

2017-08-23

Minister of Justice Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe is likely to resign from his post today, informed sources said yesterday.

According to top government sources the Minister had informed President Maithripala Sirisena that he is willing to resign from the post.

Though it was speculated that Talatha Athukorala was expected to be sworn in as the new Minister of Justice, Ms Athukorala denied the story that she was to be appointed to the post. “No one had asked me to take over the Justice Ministry,” she said.

Other sources said some Ministers and MPs were pushing for the appointment of MP Jayampathi Wickramaratne to be appointed to the post. (Yohan Perera)

No-Confidence Motions Galore

BY FAIZER SHAHEID-2017-08-23

The era of good governance has met many road bumps and potholes in its journey since becoming the driving force of Sri Lankan politics, but what it really lacked all along was a good driver to manoeuvre it through the rough terrains. For a long time coming, the people believed in the idea of good governance and were angered by the lack of it. After a plethora of opportunities being wasted, and now that the Government appears to be exposed, the politics at play is evident and they appear to be drowning in a sea of 'No-Confidence' motions.

Contrasting politics has been played all along. The politicians know to play to the tunes of the people's desires during election time, and by now, many have figured how and when a politician would bring out his bag of tricks. The problem is in the people. It is the people that fail to distinguish politics from government in a democratic structure. Politics would surround the art of attaining Government by convincing the people to grant them power, but Government is where the people are actually ruled.

Politicians tend to showcase a certain charismatic persona when addressing the people. They employ various tactics depending on the audience. For example, Hirunika Premachandra used her father's murder to activate sympathy and sentiment from among the people, while the United National Party (UNP) as a whole, repeatedly drove the idea of being liberated from corruption and debt.

Background

Since March 2016, when the Ministry of Megapolis and Western Development was first faced with a No-Confidence motion in Parliament, the Government has been swimming in a sea of No Confidence motions. The motion against the minister did not proceed.

Not too long after that, the then Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake was faced with a 'No-Confidence' motion and ever since, there has been a significant rise in the seriousness of No-Confidence motions. The motion was defeated comprehensively with an overwhelming majority of 145 to 51. At the time, the Joint Opposition had claimed that there was never an intention of defeating the Government, but to expose the Government for its wrongdoings.

Following the bond scam allegations, Ravi Karunanayake took the brunt of it on behalf of his party and resigned before a 'No-Confidence' motion was taken up in Parliament. In fact a 'No confidence' motion with the signatures of 34 Parliamentarians was presented in Parliament, where even members of the Cabinet threatened to sign the contract should Karunanayake remain as Minister.

Soon after, Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe took on the heat, after making statements opposing the Hambantota Port deal. This time, the action was brought by Dr. Rajapakshe's own party members, on an allegation that he had violated the collective responsibility of the Cabinet.

Collective responsibility is a Parliamentary convention that once the Cabinet has made a decision in respect of a particular matter, all members of that Cabinet must publically support such a decision irrespective of whether they like it or not. The Hambantota port deal with China was one of the more infamous decisions of the Government where plenty of criticism was levelled against the Government.

The Government had however pushed the decision further, considering that the harbour was a loss making entity.

There was even more criticism from the Government against Dr. Rajapakshe for the way he operated. There were claims that

Dr. Rajapakshe was preventing any action being filed against Mahinda Rajapaksa and family in a Court of Law, and that Dr. Rajapakshe was to be the Presidential Candidate of the Joint Opposition should Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa be prevented from contesting the elections. The Working Committee of the UNP took him to task on the first matter and he was given time, until 17 August, to respond to the allegations. However, the latter allegation was a baseless one that has not been propounded by either of the factions.

However, despite the charges levelled against him, Dr. Rajapakhe refused to step down from his portfolio.

Follow up

With Dr. Rajapakshe refusing to abide by his party's demand for his resignation, a major cloud appears to have loomed above the heads of the UNP members. When Dr. Rajapakshe was asked to show cause as to why he was intentionally delaying the institution of any legal action against the Rajapaksas,

Dr. Rajapakshe lashed out that he was not about to interfere with the judicial functions.

However, the problem was that the allegations were not communicated formally to the Working Committee of the UNP. Therefore, when Sujeeva Senasinghe questioned whether Dr. Rajapakshe had abided by the show cause notice issued by the Working Committee, it was pointed out that he had not. The Working Committee had thereby resolved to remove Dr. Rajapakshe from his Cabinet portfolio if he did not step down.

His refusal to step down on Monday (21) appeared as an open confrontation with his party men, and as a result, the Prime Minister had reportedly requested President Maithripala Sirisena to remove the Justice Minister from his ministerial portfolio.

There also does not appear to be any sign of a No-Confidence motion expected to be taken up any time soon.

In the meantime, UNP Parliamentarian Chaminda Wijesiri said that he was preparing another No-Confidence motion to be filed against the Minister of Provincial Councils and Local Government for purposefully delaying the Local Government elections and the Provincial Council elections. Despite his statements, it appears that the 20th Amendment to the Constitution and the move to amend the Local Authorities (Amendment) Bill was proposed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. It appears unlikely to be taken seriously in Parliament.

Procedure of No-Confidence Motions

While the frequency of introducing No-Confidence motions appears to be getting increasingly frequent, very few understand the impact of such a motion. A No-Confidence motion is a motion filed in Parliament where, if passed, it is proven that a particular Parliamentarian, in an official capacity, is no longer fit to hold a particular office. There are times when such a No-Confidence motion can also be filed against the entire Government.

Nonetheless, unlike in many other countries, a No-Confidence motion has no particular form or procedure prescribed in law. The general procedure of filing a motion in Parliament, as prescribed in the Standing Orders of Parliament, are followed.

The procedure of a No-Confidence motion has long operated as a convention in the Sri Lankan Parliament. Therefore, it is a petition calling for the resignation of a particular holder of office, on a particular ground. It is usually signed by several Parliamentarians at the beginning when being handed over to the office. Thereafter, the Government shall mull over whether or not the matter must be taken up in Parliament, and the Speaker shall ultimately decide whether to proceed for debate. Upon conclusion of the debate, Parliament may go for a vote, where it would be determined whether such a person, against whom the motion has been levelled, must be removed. There is no compulsion that such a No-Confidence motion must be adhered to, which means that it has no valid legal basis to be bound by.

There is only political authority in respect of a No-Confidence motion, and should a person not resign or be removed after such a motion has been passed, it is deemed that a Parliamentary Convention has been breached. There will be abundant criticism from the people too, and support for the Government is likely to turn in the opposite direction.

Constitution on No-Confidence motion

Although the law contains next to nothing on No-Confidence motions and its effect on Parliamentary activity, a certain provision was included through the Nineteenth Amendment that makes a No-Confidence motion a very powerful tool. The provision is found in Article 48 (2) of the Constitution, which reads:

'If Parliament rejects the Statement of Government Policy or the Appropriation Bill or passes a vote of no-confidence in the Government, the Cabinet of Ministers shall stand dissolved, and the President shall, unless he has, in the exercise of his powers under Article 70, dissolved Parliament, appoint a Prime Minister, Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers, Ministers who are not members of the Cabinet of Ministers and Deputy Ministers in terms of Articles 42, 43, 44 and 45'.

In the above provision, it is stated that if a No-Confidence motion is passed against the Government, that such Government shall stand dissolved. However, the phrase 'in the Government' is in need of interpretation. The word 'in' can be interpreted as not necessarily meaning the whole of the Government. It can include part of the Government too, or an individual in the Government.

The word 'in' may refer to the aspect of being within the Government, or that an ultra vires action by a unit of Government is a representation of the entire Government. In other words, a vote of No-Confidence against an individual in Government is a vote of No-Confidence against the entire Government. If the Court determines the same or similar interpretation of a No-Confidence motion, it would mean that, should a No -Confidence motion be filed against Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe and succeed, the entire Cabinet may have to be replaced including the Prime Minister. Perhaps this the reason why the UNP mounted pressure on Ravi Karunanayake to resign before taking up a No Confidence motion. Perhaps this is the reason why the present Government is too reluctant to take on No-Confidence motions against it.

As the Constitution is considered the most supreme legal document in the country, the Government shall be bound by how the Supreme Court interprets it. If the Supreme Court determines the Constitutional recognition of a Government as being absent after a No-Confidence motion has been passed, the Government will be operating against the mandate of the people.

Conclusion

At present, the Government appears to be fishing in waters that it probably does not quite understand. There are innumerable fallacies that are being spread, and the politics at play are seemingly distracting the people well enough from the duties of the Government. Perhaps it is a ploy to shelve other issues, such as the bond scandal investigation, or other corruption allegations against the Government. Or perhaps it is to distract the people from filing legal action in Courts against the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution or the Local Authorities (Amendment) Bill, where there are resultantly further delays to Local Government polls.

Regardless of circumstances, the Government has deviated from its duty of good governance and rule of law and is focussing more on saving itself. If any No-Confidence motion is passed, the Government may have to endure the deep wrath of the Opposition which is awaiting its opportunity.

The cracks within the Government are becoming increasingly evident, and as the agreement between the UNP and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) draws to an end, it can be surmised that crossover season shall begin fairly early and may not mean glad tidings for the self-proclaimed good governance Government.

Nahil Wijesuriya & ‘SATHOSA’ Under Ravi Karunanayake

By Upali Cooray –AUGUST 23, 2017

Upali Cooray

“There is a house available at Monarch residencies and it belonged to Nahil Wijesuriya’s (NW) daughter who is a friend of my daughter.” This extract is from MP Ravi Karunanayake’s (RK) statement in Parliament.

This story of RK& NW started more than 17 years ago. RK was appointed as the Minister of Commerce and Consumer affairs. NW was appointed as Chairman of SATHOSA by PM Ranil Wickremesinghe (RW) in President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s Government in the year 2001.

Nahil Wijesuriya (NW), one of the richest if not the richest, businessmen in this country. Coming from Trinity College Kandy, is a professional Engineer.

NW was a person in a hurry. He required results and motivated the existing staff to work according to his thinking. The Rajagiriya, Welisara and Jawatta super markets were brought up to higher standards of customer service on par with private owned super markets with online transactions for the shops including bar coding and stock control. Further plans were on, for expanding the online system, Island wide.

Pay increases on par with private sector were offered to attract skilled personal. He did not tolerate political influence. He supervised the engineering staff of SATHOSA day and night to give his skills in refurbishing the shops such as display arrangements and customer service. I personally consider him as a Maverick. That is his success as a businessman. However NK resigned suddenly just after I resigned in disgust from SATHOSA in July 2002. The reasons for NW’s resignation are not known to me. However I observed that he wanted to perform quite independently from the minister. Furthermore, He had his group of companies to look after. His frank view was SATHOSA staff was a hardworking and efficient lot.

Ceylon Biscuits, which put in a joint bid with another Sri Lankan firm, Carsons Group of Companies named International Grocers Alliance (IGA) was among the five parties that submitted bids for the sale of retail arm of SATHOSA consisting 150 units. The distribution of goods was handed over to a logistics company named LOGIVIS. Previously SATHOSA did its own distribution all over the country very successfully.  To make a very long story short, appointing LOGIVIS was a disaster. IGA wanted a “state of the art” system introduced.

As a consequence the retail division of SATHOSA started reducing its work force via a voluntary retirement scheme.  The VRS was offered when a 40% stake and management control of the SATHOSA retail unit was sold to the local consortium for 650 million Sri Lankan rupees ($1=LKR96.90) in July 2002. More over 100 casual employees were terminated on the pretext of over staffing and a similar number was appointed from RK’s electorate. Even illiterate drug addicts were appointed to the casual vacancies.

The IGA consortium miscalculated the political situation when Chandrika Kumaratunga led government came to power in 2004. Jeyaraj Fernandopulle was appointed Minister. 

There was a necessity to probe the institution during the period RK was the Minister. RK would have been found out much earlier in 2004 long before the Penthouse deal. The new Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle disregarded it. It was believed by some, that RK and Jeyaraj were buddies though they belonged to different camps. “Birds of feather get together”.

The Directors of SATHOSA retail were giving excuses. The first excuse was the government’s failure to raise of Rs 150 million.  The second was full control.  They resigned claiming these demands were not met. The real reason is lack of any experience in doing the job.

All distribution of staple foods needed by the   poor segments of the market went haywire under the management of IGA. The orders placed for goods far exceeded the requirements. Transport was erratic. Once, a lorry was sent to Kalutara retail unit with a full load of requirements and then went to Negombo unit with only two bags ofB’onions. Around 750 cases of “Sustagen” powder was laying at Buttala shop, a faraway area where poor customers are a majority. They go for lesser priced local substitutes A tin of “Sustagen” was over Rs. 1000/-.  It is pertinent to note that even one of the share holding companies Ceylon Biscuits Ltd had to take back their confectionary products worth over one million rupees at that time. The new purchasing manager had no idea of market segments; re-order levels and re- order quantities. Distribution was in chaos.  It was too late when IGA realized this chaos within one and a half years. The contract with LOGIVIS was terminated. As a result of these grave miscalculations through ignorance, the average turnover was below Rs. 300 million for the first six months. Conversely purchases under the new management showed 1.5 Billion. This quantity could cover entire six months operation

Read More