INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY: SRI LANKA SHOULD LEARN FROM INDIAN SUPREME COURT.

Image: Four SC judges  holding a press conference to inform the public of irregularities that were happening in case administration in the Supreme Court of India   (© WION)

16/02/2018

Lawyers for Democracy wants stakeholder in justice system in Sri Lanka to learn from Indian Judges; Urges frank discussion on lessons learnt from Corruption cases files against Chief Justice and a sitting Appeal Court judge.

The Lawyers for Democracy wish to express their admiration and appreciation for the action taken by the four Supreme Court judges in India last week, when they took the extraordinary step of holding a press conference to inform the public of irregularities that were happening in case administration in the Supreme Court of India under the leadership of the incumbent Chief Justice.

Indian judges took this extraordinary step after informing the Chief Justice that the traditional manner in which the Supreme Court procedures were followed was being flouted by recent actions by the Chief Justice. For example, cases were being fixed for hearing without following the traditional procedures that ensured transparency devoid of bias. The judges had first made their representations to the Chief Justice on these matters, seeking corrective measures. When that failed, the judges took upon themselves the responsibility of informing the public so that the public would do whatever possible to ensure that the best traditions of the administration of justice are preserved. The judges, at the press conference, pointed out that if the present transgressions continue, best practice standards would suffer and a degeneration of the system would take place over the coming years.

This extraordinary call for caution demonstrates the uncompromising attitude of Indian judges when it comes to the preservation of the traditions of the independence of judiciary. Instead of keeping silence and letting these transgressions continue, they took their obligations seriously and intervened with the view to informing the public so that the public could make informed interventions to ensure that those responsible for systems of administration preserve the best traditions, on which their own protection depends. This courageous and farsighted action needs to be reflected upon and the lessons of such great interventions should be learned by us in Sri Lanka too.

Had there been similar interventions during such transgressions in recent decades, particularly during the administration of Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva, our own system would not have suffered the damage that it has unfortunately suffered. Courageous actions, internally and externally, to prevent any interference with the traditions that preserve the independence of judiciary, which win the confidence of the public, are at the very core of the preservation of the rule of law itself.

This great learning experience needs to become part of our own traditions. Debates and discussions on these issues in no way damage the image of the judiciary. Instead, it enhances the confidence of the people, as already demonstrated by the extraordinary support the four judges won from the Indian Bar and the Indian public. Therefore, measures such as contempt of court proceedings should never be used in order to prevent vital discussions on the preservation of the best traditions of the judiciary.

In Sri Lanka, we are now faced with a situation where a former Chief Justice (one time an Attorney General) and a serving Court of Appeal judge have been charged for corruption. We do not wish to comment on the merits of the case. Our purpose is to draw attention to the fact that two of the judges of the highest courts are facing charges with criminal violations, and how this relates to our institutional problems. The absolute integrity of those who sit in our highest courts is the last and final safeguard of the most important institution protecting the people: the judiciary. When extraordinary problems, such as those manifested in these charges, are brought to the surface, it should be a moment when all concerned with the administration of justice engage in serious reflections about the predicament of the system on which their own survival depends.

The survival of traditions protecting the administration of justices is necessary for the entire nation. Therefore, it is the right of the people of the nation to examine the circumstances under which such matters have become possible, examine the root causes of these problems and take immediate measures in order to ensure that correcting lasting actions are taken towards the restoration of the traditions that preserve the independence of judiciary.

Such a debate is now a dire need among the public as well as among the lawyers. A fearless but dignified bar is an essential element for the preservation of democratic traditions and the traditions protecting judiciary are at the core. If the lawyers keep silent when the very ground on which their own profession rests is uncertain, and perhaps suffer serious peril, their own capacity to engage in their profession with integrity will suffer greatly. If that happens, that’s a national tragedy.

Any attempt by an individual or an association (including the lawyers) challenging, except before a court of law, the authority of the CIOBAC will no doubt amount to an interface of the CIOBAC. What is required is a frank discussion on this case and not a challenge.

The democratic means by which such tragedies are prevented is eternal vigilance. Now the time has come to express our own capacity to keep a vigilant eye on our institutions and show that we do have the courage to intervene when interventions are necessary. Let us all emulate the great example set by the four judges of the Indian Supreme Court.

Conveners of Lawyers of Democracy

Mr.Lal Wijenayaka

Mr.K. S Ratnavel

Mr.Sunil Jayarathna

Mr.Sudath Neththasinghe

Mr.Harishke Samaranayake

Mr.J C Weliamuna

Mr.Prabodha Rathnayake

The Catalogue

Featured image courtesy Wikipedia

PASAN JAYASINGHE-02/13/2018

In 70 short years, we’ve amassed a catalogue that is overwhelming.

Limit it to just physical horror – the massacres, the burnings, the shellings – the ones whose logic placed them outside the rules of just war (as if those rules made sense in the first place) – and it is still a catalogue that stretches on and on. Each entry has a location, a date, a perpetrator and a body count. The entries form a list long enough to blur from scrolling down. Cities, towns, villages. Temples, churches, mosques. Hospitals, bus stops, libraries. Everywhere.

Nothing about this catalogue is definite.

What is online is different to what is broadcast – shaky sequences of the aftermath, and on rare occasion, grainy shots of the during. What is printed is different still – on books and reams of newspaper. And scribblings on exercise books and blackboards which will never see the light of day.
Language disrupts it. What is in Sinhala is not the same in Tamil. There are different words for killing and death with incompatible meanings. English can hardly bridge the chasm; a blunt tool often unable to visualise or articulate horror.

And of course, ethnicity colours it. How can it not? Decades of independence and centuries of dependence spent defining and self-defining, always against another – who we are because of who we are not – means that some horrors are less horrifying, or aren’t horrors at all.

The body counts don’t capture those who died too late, from injury or shock or grief. Deaths too inconvenient to be included as statistics. And how to represent wounds, or trauma? What columns could possibly capture those?

So the catalogue is actually multiple catalogues. They vary depending on who you are and what you speak and how it’s recorded and how it is interpreted. They align sometimes, of course. There are the horrors everyone knows, the ones too big to ignore. The dark months. The library on fire. The blood-swept beach. A highlight- reel of our Independence. But even here, agreement may only be on dates. Everything else, from the body counts to who inflicted the horrors to who suffered them to what, plainly, to call them, is still mutable. A hundred variable numbers, names and places.

This is not even to suggest that there is some sort of parity between these catalogues. We all know which catalogue passes for truth in this country; the one with no consequences attached for being spoken, cited and mourned.

But outside the terrible highlights, outside the stories that are factual enough to be written or uttered, in whatever language and on whatever medium to spark off a myriad interpretations of those facts themselves, outside of all of that are the horrors that remain unspoken.

Those whose witnesses have fled; those whose witnesses have perished, too; those whose witnesses are, still, holding their tongues; those, simply with no witnesses. So the catalogue is imprinted inside minds across the island, whispered if dared. It is scattered across the globe, spoken, perhaps loudly, across carpeted rooms. It is under gravestones, and simply, in the earth.

We’d like to think the catalogue, in all its forms, won’t stop growing. The fighting has stopped, after all. But time will throw up the memories. They did repeatedly over these 70 years, after all. And what cannot be spoken within these seabound confines will be spoken, and made true, elsewhere. Then, when that is not enough (and it will not be), the fighting will resume, in a different form with different players but still producing location, date, perpetrator, body count. More inches to a catalogue with no end.

So we repeat the fictions of independence and liberation and will the time to pass faster so the catalogue holds no weight, that it becomes just another, dispassionate list. A desperate kind of hoping that time will be enough to forget. We keep saying how beautiful this place is, as if repeating it will make it true. As if it will wash away the taint of the horror from the actually beautiful beaches and fields and mountains which hold the last breath of thousands. As if it will bury what we all know – that this is a violent, ugly place.

So the catalogue will never be reconciled. Its versions are too many, its weight too much, its holders too scattered. And it will never be completed, try as we might.

Editor’s Note: Click here for more content around Sri Lanka’s 70th Independence Day. Click here for our video series. 

Tsunami alert

  

2018-02-16

The Local Government elections concluded a week ago may perhaps remain the only one in our history that created a major crisis in the Central Government. In fact as I wrote in my last Friday column that the fate of Sri Lanka has already been decided by other factors that led to the election after this Unity Government dodged voters for over two years.
The elections brought with it the political conflicts within the ‘Unity’ Government out into the open and onto election platforms.
The fight between President Sirisena and the UNP leadership focussed on PM did not give President Sirisena the advantage of collecting anti-UNP votes as he and his advisors calculated.
Instead that was to the advantage of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Pohottuwa (Flower bud) party that still is in its infancy.
It is also accepted that the 25 percent mandate on women’s representation motivated young women to poll more this time and that too went in favour of Rajapaksa.
All in all Rajapaksa was proved a brand name, readily marketable across Sinhala South like no other popular brand had ever been before, in electoral politics.
Rajapaksa is also the single major factor that keeps all others in the Yahapalana Government scared stiff in parting ways for now.
The “Y” apologists demand President Sirisena and PM Wickremesinghe to stay put, to prevent a Rajapaksa return.
What for? is a question that is rarely answered, with two years of miserable and corrupt rule that Yahapalanaya was and is no second to Rajapaksa rule.
And they cannot part with each other and accuse each other of all mega corruption and all miserable collective failures in implementing what was promised.
While these Colombo pundits screamed hoarse against Rajapaksa and demand Rajapaksas are brought before law over mega corruption, these Yahapalana political leaders have been accumulating massive corrupt deals under their belts with the same Filthy Rich, the Rajapaksas were dealing with.

These Yahapalana leaders with a Russian warship deal, a massive digital frequency deal through TRC directly under President, a huge deal on renting the DPJ Tower on a Cabinet Paper submitted by the PM, a PR contract with a US company no different to Sajin Vas deals and a whole lot of more corrupt deals that have to be investigated into, therefore have no moral right to investigate any other.
Their failure therefore is not just that they were dragging feet over Rajapaksas. Their failure is that they cannot punish Rajapaksas who were wheeler-dealing with their own dealers doing business with them. Their failure is that they have no alternatives to Rajapaksa even on the economy.
Everything from Colombo Port City to Hambantota Port, including the Mattala Airport these Yahapalana leaders said is only good to store paddy, have now become their  development projects.
They had to cut down on agriculture subsidies to workout IMF financial support and promised wifi instead of fertiliser.
It is not that they don’t understand rural issues. It is that this neoliberal economic path can only traverse the city and urban middle-class life.
The cumulative factor of Yahapalana rule is that they are totally alienated from over 70 per cent of the population in rural society that meant loss of votes at the elections. That also leaves them as failures in delivering on promises made three years ago that led to frustration among the middle-class voters at the elections.
It also leaves them as inefficient and corrupt too that saw them belting out empty promises once again during elections and people did not want to believe again.
Thus the Rajapaksa bogey has once again become their habitual answer to scare off people from demanding another change and to remain in power.
It is therefore not surprising to see the usually dependable politician Minister Mangala Samaraweera, issuing his most kiddish statement to date claiming “The UNP has a solemn duty not just to the 46 percent of the electorate who voted for us (the UNP) and President Sirisena’s SLFP (includes UPFA too) last Saturday, but to the entire resounding majority of our citizens, all 6.1 million of them (55.3%) who marched to the polls last Saturday and voted against a return to Rajapaksa rule.”
It is no hallucination in Mangala Samaraweera but fear of getting dislodged from the power that makes him believe 6.1 million of the people on Saturday polled against Rajapaksa.

The elections brought with it the political conflicts within the Unity Government out

None of the political parties here in Sri Lanka are democratic.

That social mood which now threatens this Yahapalana Government cannot be covered by a Rajapaksa bogey

Craze to hold on to power makes him and all “Y” apologists forget President Sirisena’s whole campaign was anti-UNP.
Sirisena was in competition with Rajapaksa to collect the major share of the anti-UNP vote. So did the JVP that stood against both parties in this Unity Government.
Thus the total vote polled by President Sirisena (13.4%) and the JVP (6.3%) was an anti-UNP vote when added to the anti-UNP 44.7 percent Rajapaksa mustered tells the UNP, a massive 64.4 is of the people had voted against them and by default, against this Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Government.
If that massive anti-UNP vote did not create a social mood that drove these Yahapalana leaders into conflict and crisis, if that social mood cemented by this LG elections was not anti-Government and threatening the political leadership in Government, there was no reason for all the dragging revolts and infighting within the SLFP and the UNP over, who should be the next PM and who should run the Government.
That social mood which now threatens this Yahapalana Government cannot be covered by a Rajapaksa bogey however big it is blown.
The writing of this coming political Tsunami was glaring big on the wall and I wrote thus in my blog two days before elections.
“With Rajapaksa assumed to have another comeback, President Sirisena will have a harder time ahead than his ‘advisors’ had calculated.”
“The ITAK leadership in TNA will, therefore, find themselves in troubled and deep in hot waters without any acceptable excuse for piggybacking the UNP for two long and unproductive years.”
“In brief, the Unity Government after the LG elections will be left as fragile as no other coalition Government had ever been in mid-term before. Election campaigning by President Sirisena had already laid the ground for the political crises ahead despite how the people would vote on Saturday. What the EC would read out as official results will only add salt to the bitter pickle on the boil.”


What else does this catastrophic situation expose and prove? What is exposed and proved is more serious than the Rajapaksa bogey.
In fact, space for a Rajapaksa comeback is also due to this major reason that proves we don’t have any democracy the Colombo  pundits want to save from Rajapaksa.
If a society is democratic, political parties in that society are also democratic. Here it is not as these major crises expose and prove. In functional democracies, these crises are not restricted to dinner parties and ‘closed door’ scheming.
All this week after LG elections, breaking news provided was about different groups meeting at Pageat Street and Temple Trees proved none of these political parties are democratic and none have an active membership.
In democratic political parties with an active membership these issues are not discussed at dinner parties. They are discussed at Special Conventions of political party members.
It is members who gather in special conventions to decide their next leader. Decide the future  political line of the party. That was how the Lanka Samasamaja Party (LSSP) decided their coalition with the SLFP in 1964 June.
The whole party discussed three different  Political Resolutions at local party branches and elected their delegates for the special party conference.
At the special delegates’ conference, it was the political resolution campaigned for by Dr. N. M. Perera led group that won and allowed the LSSP to join the SLFP Government with ministries. That LSSP is long dead and no more.


Can any of the mainstream political parties hold anything that can be called a party conference of members to decide who their leader should be and what they should stand for on any national issue?
None of the political parties here in Sri Lanka are democratic.
Political parties today don’t have an actual membership either.
Here in Sri Lanka political decisions under party labels are taken by the leader with his own carefully selected group of henchmen amidst scheming and manipulations.
Most henchmen are either from the ‘Filthy Rich’ or directly in business with them.
All political parties run with big money pumped at various times by wheeler-dealers.
Therefore decisions taken in the name of the people with promises for democratic reforms, never get translated into action.

If pressured to implement, the farthest we would go is to have them written and lie dormant in Statute books.

Bottom line is that these political leaders have no membership and no organised democratic party.

They therefore don’t decide for the benefit of the people and are not responsible for the people who elect them.  People are there to endorse decisions taken by these political power groups and give them legitimacy. Same is happening now and nothing else. This Parliament and these political parties have no other purpose as well.

The crisis at hand is therefore not only about who would run the next Government but about the necessity to workout democratic alternatives for people.

An impeachment motion against president Sirisena for intentional violation of the constitution !

(Lanka-e-News - 16.Feb.2018, 2.25PM)  With president Maithripala Sirisena’s  popularity dwindling to a 4% ,and his attempts to intentionally  plunge the country into chaos and confusion in order to cover up his own personal fiascos , there has emerged a threat of an impeachment motion  against him , which news we are reluctantly compelled to reveal  to the entire population of the country. 

This is the second impeachment motion to be tabled in parliament against a president in Sri Lanka’s (SL)  history . The first impeachment motion was against former president Ranasinghe Premadasa . However, the speaker at that time who accepted it did not take further action  .

Intentional violation of the constitution ..

The impeachment motion against the president due to   intentional violation of the constitution by him  will be necessitated if he appoints Nimal Siripala De Silva or any other to the post of P.M. without the consent of the present P.M  Ranil Wickremesinghe . In the event of the president taking that course of action  it constitutes  an absolute violation of article 38(2)(a) (i) of the constitution under which the president becomes liable to the offence of ‘intentional violation of the constitution .‘ 

Two letters have been received by the president  (letter from Amaraweera of the UPFA and letter from Susil Premajayantha of the SLFP) which are written  either owing to  ignorance of the law or following wrong advice  . Based on the belief that the majority in the parliament can be secured  , and by collecting the names of the MPs who consent to it, preparations are being made to announce  the name of Nimala Siripala as the P.M. via the president if 113 names can be collected. 

That  is however impossible under the 19 th amendment of the constitution .Article  (46) (2) of the 19 th amendment of the constitution states thus ….

(2) Prime Minister
(a ) if he resigns of his own accord by addressing a letter to the president , or
(b) if he ceases to be an M.P.
As long as the cabinet of ministers are functioning under the constitution , so long will the prime minister  continue in his post. 

It therefore very clear as long as the cabinet of ministers  last so long will the prime minister continue and the president cannot effect changes. It is stipulated in the constitution until the government is dissolved , next elections are held and a new government is appointed , the cabinet will continue and during that period the P.M. shall continue in that post.

The P.M. can be changed only by the Parliament and not by the president… 

The constitution is very clear on the procedure to be followed to change the  P.M  . The president cannot effect changes according to his will and pleasure  , but rather it is a parliamentary process. Only if an impeachment motion is brought against the P. M. and  he is defeated , it is only then his post falls vacant

In the circumstances , simply on a letter of Susil who is well known for tomfoolery ad buffoonery , and after obtaining 113 signatures , no matter whose , the president has no power to remove the incumbent P.M.  The  president should  entrust task that to the parliament .

According to the normal procedure governing the tabling of an impeachment motion in parliament, if a vote is taken after a debate in parliament on the impeachment motion, and P.M. Ranil Wickremesinghe  is defeated ,  then and only then , the individual who enjoys the confidence of the majority in parliament , and after he is named , the president can appoint him as the new P.M.

If  president  Sirisena takes action transgressing the laws  and norms to suit the needs of his moronic henchmen and stooges or in accordance with the Maharaja’s  mahajara channels which are directed towards  the  fecal drainage pipelines , undoubtedly the president is going to face charges of ‘intentional violation of the constitution ,’ and thereby the inevitable impeachment motion.

Based on reports reaching Lanka e news inside information division ,  in the event of the UNP tabling an impeachment motion against the president ,the Joint Opposition of Rajapakses has agreed to support it. If that happens , president Sirisena alias Sillysena’s position is at stake , and a Presidential election  will follow. 

Chandrapradeep 

Translated by Jeff 

---------------------------
by     (2018-02-16 09:09:11)

Cool and confident Ranil carries on as PM

• PM addresses media, says Unity Government will go on
• “We have a majority” to face no-faith motion, says Premier 
• Accepts responsibility for election defeat; says Govt. will correct course
• UNP leadership transition will take place; believes new leaders must emerge

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe at the press conference yesterday - Reuters

By Dharisha Bastians  -Saturday, 17 February 2018 

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe radiated a ‘business as usual’ attitude yesterday as he announced that he would continue in office, and brushed off a week of political uncertainty and chaos as the difficulties of ‘coalition politics’ in his first public comments since his party was defeated in Local Government elections last Saturday.

“As far as I am concerned, I am carrying on as Prime Minister according to the constitution,” Wickremesinghe asserted during his widely anticipated statement last evening.

Even as the rumour mill went into overdrive again yesterday, Wickremesinghe assured reporters that the Government continues to function. “The daily work of Government continues as usual,” he said.

Looking supremely confident and relaxed at the press interaction and talking to journalists for over an hour, the Prime Minister insisted that his United National Front for Good Governance (UNFGG) Government’s position was that the Unity Government could go on. To dismiss the Government, the constitution was clear on a no-confidence motion, he explained.

Questioned about if he was confident of showing the numbers in Parliament if the crisis boiled down to that, Wickremesinghe replied: “We have the majority.”

Coalition politics was different and complex, the Premier explained while chatting to journalists after the briefing. “This is our first time ruling in coalition too,” he said. Ruling as a single party was always easier since policies were one and the same, Wickremesinghe added.
In an uncharacteristic public acknowledgement, Wickremesinghe also admitted last weekend’s election results had been a “major setback” for political parties in the ruling alliance.

“As Head of Government and Prime Minister, I have to take responsibility for the defeat,” Wickremesinghe said.

All over the world, midterm elections were a good barometer to test a Government’s performance and public opinion, the Premier noted, adding that there was still time for the Government to correct itself.

The unfavourable economic situation, unexpected natural disasters that impacted food production and pricing and the failure to deliver on all the 8 January 2015 promises had cost the ruling parties the election, the Prime Minister analysed.

“We accept the people’s verdict. It was a warning sign from the voters. We will look inwards. We will learn from our mistakes and correct course,” he pledged.

Course correction would include restructuring of policy and reforming the Cabinet of Ministers, the Premier noted. Serious talks on the Cabinet reshuffle would take place with the President next week, he explained. “We remain committed to carry forward the 8 January mandate,” Wickremesinghe insisted.

Asked about SLFP calls for his resignation, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe admitted that the party’s position had been communicated to him by President Maithripala Sirisena. His own relationship with the President following an acrimonious election campaign and a crisis in Government remained as usual, Wickremesinghe told Daily FT. “We met yesterday, we met the day before. We carry on,” he said.

The Prime Minister also vehemently denied allegations that he had prevented members of the former ruling family from being prosecuted.

“I didn’t protect anybody. I know Mahinda Rajapaksa well. I discuss various matters that crop up from time to time, but I have no other connection with him,” he insisted.

As for leadership struggles within his own party, “nobody has asked for my resignation,” he quipped lightheartedly. “Let the new leadership come and take over the party,” he added.

The UNP, which was reduced to 32% of votes at the recently concluded local elections, will undertake a major restructure to pave the way for a new generation of leaders to emerge, the Prime Minister said. Discussions about this restructure were already taking place among party members, he added.

Wickremesinghe did not directly commit to stepping down as party leader, but insisted that the time was right for a transition of power.

“We entered politics 40 years ago. Sri Lankan political parties are centered around individuals. A transition has to take place,” Wickremesinghe, who has been at the helm of the UNP since 1994, told journalists.

It was the first time one of the two leaders at the center of the political turmoil gripping the country since last weekend had addressed the crisis and attempted to provide clarity about the fate of the coalition Government.

President Sirisena who was due to address the heads of media institutions last morning, suddenly cancelled the meeting at midnight Thursday. Inviting journalists to have refreshments following the briefing, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe quipped, “You missed breakfast, so at least have tea.”

UPFA not ready to throw in towel yet 

The United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) yesterday said that efforts to form their own Government have not been abandoned yet, despite Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s statement to re-establish his authority.

“Discussions are still ongoing and we will announce an outcome on Monday,” UPFA General Secretary Minister Mahinda Amaraweera told Daily FT.

Amaraweera, however, dismissed reports that a memorandum of understanding was signed with the Joint Opposition, but confirmed that negotiations are underway to determine the way forward.

The UPFA and the Joint Opposition (JO) yesterday announced that a two-member committee comprising Minister Susil Premajayantha and JO MP Dinesh Gunawardana have been appointed to hold talks with potential cross-overs and alliance partners. (CD) 

Will Rajapaksa’s Return do Good for Sri Lanka?

Rajapaksa has not regretted about the several acts of corruption in his government. He has not disowned his family members and they all would march back into the government in various capacities , if Rajapaksa were to return to power.

by N.S.Venkataraman writes from Chennai-Feb 16, 2018

Feb 16, 2018

( February 16, 2018, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) The decisive victory of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa in the local government polls in Sri Lanka on 10th February has caused considerable surprise to the political observers around the world. Rajapaksa’s party Sri Lanka People’s Front won in 239 out of the 341 councils pushing his rivals far behind.

This victory has caused huge surprise, since Rajapaksa was voted out of power only a few years back and he was accused of indulging in nepotism, corrupt practices and favouring his family members and providing them plump positions in the government. Many felt that Rajapaksa’s government just became a family affair. The defeat of Rajapaksa in the last Presidential poll was hailed as vindication of people’s unhappiness about the quality of the governance that he provided and was considered as a rebuke for many unsavoury happeniongs during his tenure.

Then, given this recent past scenario, how is it that Rajapaksa has come back with such decisive victory in the local government polls now ?

The admirers of Rajapaksa inevitably argue that the President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe who have been ruling the country together for the last few years could not meet the expectations of the people and could not give better governance than Rajapaksa. The disagreement between them on various matters relating to governance and their lack of personal equation left the people disappointed.

The ultimate question is that will Rajapaksa’s return as President of Sri Lanka, if it were to happen would do good for Sri Lanka. One cannot be sure on this.

Independent discerning observers may be of the view that what Rajapaksa secured in the local polls were negative votes caused due to the disappointment of the people about the government led by Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe and cannot be considered as positive endorsement for Mahinda Rajapaksa. Further, though both the President and Prime minister are together running the government, they chose to contest the local government polls without an alliance between them and as independent entities. The growing differences between the President and Prime Minister and the uneasy coalition has been too evident when the polls took place.

While such views may be there, one fact that cannot be ignored is that most of Sri Lankans still seem to have some level of admiration for Rajapaksa for the type of strong leadership that he provided when Sri Lanka was facing the grim problem of internal war with LTTE. Most Sri Lankans feel grateful to Rajapaksa for protecting the territorial integrity of the country by conclusively defeating LTTE. This aspect may have made many voters to give the benefit of doubt to Rajapaksa and voting for him.

While President Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe have now met after the local government elections and have agreed to work together to end the uncertainty over the coalition government’s future after the recent poll debacle, many people may now seem to conclude that Rajapaksa’s march towards power is unstoppable.

In any case, it all depends on how Rajapaksa would conduct himself in the coming days and whether he would be able to talk the appropriate political language to win back the confidence of the people. Obviously, people’s annoyance about the corrupt dealings of family members of Rajapaksa would not go away that soon and therefore, hard efforts are required on Rajapaksa’s part.

The ultimate question is that will Rajapaksa’s return as President of Sri Lanka, if it were to happen would do good for Sri Lanka. One cannot be sure on this.

So far, Rajapaksa has not regretted about the several acts of corruption in his government. He has not disowned his family members and they all would march back into the government in various capacities, if Rajapaksa were to return to power.

With Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe wasting the time and opportunity given to them by the people now having little credibility to put a united front against Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka appears to be moving towards the crossroad.

The Local Poll, the UNP and its future: A plea

 2018-02-17

The Local Government Polls have just been concluded. First let us congratulate the present government for having successfully introduced a new electoral system which on the face of it seems fair though the number of elected representatives might be excessive and for having ensured the most free and fair elections in Sri Lanka since perhaps the 1960s. With the polls behind us, the weary citizen is back to his daily routine. They will politically wake up only with another election and wake up they will in full force. At that time the politicians and their political parties need to be ready to face them again. Meanwhile, the political types are busy and preoccupied analysing the local poll result, its consequences and implications for the future.  

Totally out of step is the Victor at the Polls i.e. the “Pohottuwa”. They make the unprecedented call for the dissolution of Parliament and a General Elections. The dissolution of Parliament in any event is not constitutionally possible within four years of the peoples mandate unless with a 2/3rd majority in Parliament. Moreover, such a move would lead to a highly dangerous political precedent. Dangerous for the simple reason that citizens adopt different criteria for voting at different elections and the basis for a vote at a general election and a local government election can widely differ having regard to the primary objective of the election in question. It is important that the purpose and objectives of different elections are not mixed up or confused with one another. Hence the very idea of calling for the removal of a government elected for a five-year term based on a local poll result is preposterous and must be rejected out of hand. Neither can any country afford to have general Elections at the whims and fancies of “political adventurers” with no regard to fundamental principles of democracy.  

Totally out of step is the Victor at the Polls i.e. the “Pohottuwa”. They make the unprecedented call for the dissolution of Parliament and a General Elections

Yet however, the result conveys a message to the government in the mid-term of its mandate. Though in terms of statistics the “Pohottuwa” falls far short of a simple majority of the national vote and the two parties in government have in fact polled more, it would border on stupidity to conclude that the vote was an endorsement of the “Yahapalana” government. Notwithstanding that negative, the vote can still be justifiably viewed as an endorsement of the policy of a united approach to national reconciliation. In this overall background, it is now up to the government and particularly the senior partner in the government -- the UNP, to introspect and review its course to meet the formidable challenge of a Presidential Election by end 2019 and a general Election in 2020.  

The UNP and its allies cannot be blind to the fact that its share of the national vote declined to 32% in this local poll. It was just 2 1/2 years earlier that the UNP with its allies polled 45.6% of the vote at the General Elections. This decline needless to stress MUST give rise to concerns and follow up remedial strategy. Not just for the party hierarchy but, it also matters much to the rank and file of the party and the millions of men and women who place their trust and faith in the party. The UNP which has earned for itself the sobriquet, “The Grand Old Party” (GOP) has over the years under charismatic leaders built for itself the reputation of being a Political Organisation that can be relied upon for consolidating democracy, liberal values, social and economic freedom and moreover National Unity, cutting across race, creed and regional differences. While consolidating such values, it is the UNP that has also facilitated the most significant of national socio-economic development in the country. This perhaps explains why it is to date the only party that can garner votes in the North, South, West, East and the Central Highlands of the Island. The millions who support the UNP do so in recognition of the values the party stands for and the proud historical achievements of the party. It is also important if not imperative for the UNP to remain a force to reckon with within this dynamic socio-political environment. If not, millions of Sri Lankans may well be deprived of a voice that has hitherto fought and warded off despotic regimes, stood for liberal thinking and social and economic freedom at the worst of times. In other words the UNP as a Political Organisation is a national asset and it would be inimical to national interest to watch it wither away. Many would justifiably add that this is so with all Political Parties that are based on a philosophy as against mushroom adventurist political groups and, that democratic tradition requires the protection of them all. Yes they do. Such protection is necessarily dependent on LEADERSHIP. The question to be answered in this overall context relates to the readiness of the UNP leadership to face the voter again in 20 months from now. The UNP was blessed with charismatic leaders who led the party in good and bad times and understood almost with a sense of intuition the pulse of the people in victory and in defeat. After the party’s first debacle in 1956, Sir John Kotalawela did not cling to Leadership by manoeuvring the party working committee. Dudley Senanayake was invited to retake leadership to revive the party. The party was back in strength by 1960 and in government from 65 to 70. In 1970 the UNP despite having polled the largest share of votes in the country as a single party (37.9%) was trounced at the general election under the “first-past-the-post” system. None needed to twist Dudley’s arm then to hand over the office of Leader of the Opposition to J.R. Jayawardene who though five years older than Dudley, was considered a better tactician to take on the SLFP-led ULF juggernaut that remained in government till 1977, having extended its term by two years in a questionable manner. Dudley retained party leadership and together with JRJ vigorously took the party message to all corners of Sri Lanka till his untimely demise in 1973. By then the UNP was not just on the road to recovery but was a well-oiled machinery that had had convincingly won a few by-elections against a dominant government. In 1977, the UNP had its best ever victory. JRJ even in victory did not fail his responsibilities in ensuring continuity in party Leadership. He appointed R. Premadasa as his 2nd in command. Prior to appointing Mr. Premadasa as Prime Minister in 1978, he gave his parliamentarians and or the Party Working Committee, the right to decide on a party number two by an election in which Mr. Premadasa won convincingly.

 It is also important if not imperative for the UNP to remain a force to reckon with within this dynamic socio-political environment

 Ranil Wickremesighe will be the best available person to clarify this point further if needed. JRJ retired in style after two terms as President and Premadasa succeeded in 1989 but was unfortunately gunned down by LTTE terrorists in 1993. D.B. Wijetunge in his position as the then Prime Minister, succeeded to the Presidency and Ranil Wickremesighe as Leader of the House was appointed Prime Minister. Mr. Premadasa is often faulted by UNPers for not having groomed a successor. In fairness however, he may have done so had he lived to complete his expected two terms as President. In 1994 the UNP lost the General Elections to the UPFA led by Chandrika Kumaratunge. The UNP in opposition required a Leader of the Opposition. The UNP dissidents had come back to the party by then and RW as the former PM was not an automatic choice. DBW in a display of political maturity invited the parliamentary group to elect their group leader through secret ballot. Gamini Dissanayake was elected over RW with the slenderest of majorities. Gamini Dissanayake was assassinated while running for the Presidency in 1994 and Ranil was elected thereafter to lead the UNP.  

Almost a quarter century (24 years) has passed since then. No man or woman has led a major political party in Sri Lanka for this long save under a “family” set up. In fact, 24 years may well be a record in the real democratic world. During this entire period the UNP has not tasted victory in a Presidential Election. RW was unlucky one might say, to have lost the Presidential Elections in 1999 and 2005. In 2010 and 2015 however, a desolate UNP could not field a candidate of its own for the Presidency. In 2015 a “common candidate” was virtually “discovered” to upset the SLFP-led Presidency that prevailed a good 21 years. The “Common candidate” ironically came from the SLFP. Since 1994, the UNP has been in government for a mere five years with RW shakily holding the office of Prime Minister and which he continues to do now. Meanwhile many UNP stalwarts have gone. No, not to the “beyond” but to what they considered greener political pastures. Some of them represent the SLFP in the current government. A majority of those who so left categorically identified RW as the cause for exit.  

Notwithstanding that negative, the vote can still be justifiably viewed as an endorsement of the policy of a united approach to national reconciliation

With Ranil Wickremesinghe reaching the biblical span of three score years and ten next March, the UNP has yet to name a candidate for the Presidential Election due by the end of next year. This is not because there is a dearth of good men and women in the UNP to take the lead. Ranil Wickremesinghe must facilitate the election of a leader for the greater good in the manner his illustrious predecessors did. RW, please understand and appreciate that the UNP is sacred to millions of ordinary men and women in this country. These millions comprise ordinary rural and urban folk, Farmers, Factory Workers, self-employed and of course the country gentry and even the social elite.

The party needs to embrace them ALL, especially the voiceless. RW you have been a good and faithful servant of the UNP and stood by it in good and bad times. But the Grand Old Party is far more important than an individual or a few others who impose their will on the Leader. Even more important are the millions that STILL place their faith in the UNP. This is an appeal to the UNP. Don’t ignore the “Elephant in the room.” Ask 10 party men on the road, eight will say a change of leadership is necessary for the party to relate to the masses. Don’t act like the proverbial Ostrich and hide your head in the sand, while exposing the rest of your anatomy. Or would the party hierarchy lend credence to the old biblical saying (King James Version) “Hear now this,  foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes and see not; which have ears and hear not.” Act now. Be ready for 2020. Or else it might be all too late.

Legal experts point out that President does not have power to remove Prime Minister 

Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 10:54 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

Feb 16, Colombo: The President at his discretion cannot remove the Prime Minister under any circumstances according to the 19th Amendment of the Constitution, Senior Lecturer of the Law Faculty of the University of Colombo Dr. Prathibha Mahanamahewa points out.

He points out that the Prime Minister can be removed only by the Prime Minister sending a letter of resignation with his signature to the President or if the Prime Minister is not a member of parliament.

This is clearly stated in clause 46 (2) of the Constitution states Dr. Mahanamahewa.

Clause 46 (2) of the Constitution states that the Prime Minister shall continue to hold office throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers continues to function under the provisions of the Constitution unless he -

(a) resigns his office by a writing under his hand addressed to the President; or;
(b) ceases to be a Member of Parliament.

A group of civil organizations plans to go to courts on Monday to find out the response of the Supreme Court with regard to the President removing the Prime Minister, the state radio said.

Meanwhile, Joint Opposition MP Kumara Welgama told media that the President Maithripala Sirisena has promised to look into the legal avenues to remove the Prime Minister.

Local Polls: What’s Next?

 By S. I. Keethaponcalan –FEBRUARY 15, 2018

Dr. S. I. Keethaponcalan

Mahinda Rajapaksa is back. The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), Mahinda Rajapaksa’s newly formed party stunned the observers with a landslide victory. The party won 45 percent of the total votes nationwide, collecting majority votes in almost all the districts, 16 to be precise, in the Sinhala majority areas. Given the political realities of the country, using the term landslide to describe Rajapaksa’s victory was an understatement. I believe that Mahinda magic combined with Sinhala nationalism produced the outcome. The results, although local, have the potential to completely alter the current direction of the Sri Lankan politics and polity. If the current trends continue, perhaps, we will travel back in time.

In a recent article on the local polls, I stated that one “could feel widespread dissatisfaction about the government in the South. General complaints revolve around, for example, exorbitant cost of living (symbolized often by the price of coconut), lack of development activities, and alleged corruption.”  These were essentially the factors that cost the ruling coalition the victory in this election. Summing up the results in a personal communication, a high-ranking government official stated that “what was promised was not delivered.”

An additional factor that influenced the vote could be the inaction of the government on alleged corruption of the former president and his family. In the last presidential election, which unseated Rajapaksa, corruption charges were effectively used against the ruling party. Ranil-Maithri coalition claimed that President Rajapaksa and his family swindled large amounts of the national wealth. This public outcry played a major role in Rajapaksa’s downfall in the 2015 elections. Nevertheless, the new government failed to successfully prosecute a single member of the Rajapaksa family significantly weakening the severity of the corruption charges. It is safe to argue that through its inaction, the government effectively exonerated the former regime from corruption chargers. This, certainly aided Rajapaksa’s cause in the local government election.

Rajapaksa Agenda

Noticeably, Rajapaksa and members of his alliance have become reenergized and are stepping up the pressure on the ruling coalition. Initially, some of his supporters demanded that he be appointed the prime minister arguing that people have expressed unreserved confidence in Rajapaksa. The former president however, is not interested in taking over the government as there is only two more years till the next general election. Taking over the responsibility now could become a problem as he has to deliver within the next two years. Therefore, staking a claim for premiership is not in Rajapaksa’s immediate agenda.    

Rajapaksa is instead focusing on alternative factors. The immediate wishes of Rajapaksa and his allies are as follows: (1) they want the position of the opposition leader in the national legislature, (2) they want the parliament dissolved and a fresh general election, and (3) Rajapaksa also wants the chairmanship of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP).

First, the demand for the position of the opposition leader is strategic. With the official title, Rajapaksa can keep hammering the government more effectively and use parliament for propaganda purposes. This position could be handy in getting his party ready for the 2020 elections. The TNA, which currently serves as the main opposition party, has only 16 seats. However, the TNA’s opposition role amounts to a farce due to the fact that the TNA is actually an ally of the government. At present, with the local government poll results, one may expect more SLFP members to cross over to the Rajapaksa faction, resulting in Rajapaksa having a reasonable claim for the position of the opposition leader.

Second, Rajapaksa is not interested in forming a new government. Even if he tries, he would most likely fail because numbers are in favor of the UNP. The UNP won the last general election with 106 seats, only seven short of a simple majority. The TNA is ideologically opposed to Rajapaksa’s return and would, in all likelihood, use its parliamentary seats to buttress a UNP government. The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) may stay neutral. What this means is that Rajapaksa will not be able to muster enough seats to form his own government.  This is another reason as to why Rajapaksa is currently not interested in the premiership. Nonetheless, the local government election proved that Rajapaksa’s newly formed party (SLPP) can win more than a simple majority if the general election is conducted sooner rather than later.

There are indications that a motion will be presented demanding the dissolution of parliament. The UNP and TNA combined could prevent such a dissolution. Therefore, it is safe to assume that Sri Lanka is heading for a regular election in 2020. However, this is not a setback for Rajapaksa as he can demand the dissolution of parliament to boost the morale of his supporters and use the remaining two years to prepare for a much bigger victory in 2020. In fact, Rajapaksa will prefer a two thirds majority in 2020, so that the constitution can be altered to accommodate his ambitions or to abolish the presidential system of government. 

Third, reports indicate that Rajapaksa wants SLFP’s chairmanship back. Is Rajapaksa really interested in taking control of the SLFP? I am not sure. The SLFP used to be an effective vehicle for electoral politics, and there was a time when Rajakapsa could not be effective without the SLFP. Now, with the electoral victory in the local polls, Rajapaksa’s own party, the SLPP has proved that it could face national elections successfully. If the present trends continue unhindered, the SLPP could be a force to reckon with in 2020. History and legacy are very important for Mahinda Rajapaksa. Therefore, he is likely to consolidate the SLPP, while wooing the traditional SLFP voters with claims for SLFP leadership.

Biggest Loser

The biggest loser in this election was president Sirisena. His party could not win a single district and only managed to garner about 12 percent of the votes. The president lost his own district, Polonnaruwa. He will be under tremendous pressure from both the UNP and the SLPP in the future and will find it extremely difficult to govern smoothly. In a recent article, I argued that the president will be politically isolated in 2020 and will have no chance of winning the upcoming presidential election. The results of the local polls further concur with this assumption.

The president has already declared that he will make major changes in the near future. However, he does not have too many options except for allowing the UNP to form its own government. Dissolving parliament unilaterally is impossible. According to the 19th Amendment to the constitution, the president cannot dissolve parliament before four and half years of its first meeting. Therefore, this parliament cannot be dissolved by the president until early 2020. Karu Jauasuriya cannot muster 113 seats. He does not have the ability to break the UNP into two and about 50 percent of the UPFA members are with Rajapaksa. These Rajapaksa loyalists will not support Jayasuriya. Many UPFA ministers might join the Rajapaksa faction or abandon the government because the government is not popular. 

It seems only person who could prove majority in parliament right now is Ranil Wickremesinghe. This perhaps is what the SLPP wants because Rajapaksa loyalists believe that Wickremesinghe is a liability. If the Unity Government is abandoned, the president has a responsibility to call upon Wickremesinghe to form the government because the UNP won majority of the seats in the general election. Doing otherwise could be undemocratic. If Wickremesinghe cannot prove the majority, then another person could be invited or parliament dissolved.

Read More

      

UNP, SLFP mull fresh compromises on offer

• Another round of late night talks for President and PM
• Sagala announces resignation in compromise move 
• UNP likely to remain in Unity Government 
• Mahinda says he will govern with SLFP if it quits UNP Govt.

By Dharisha Bastians - Friday, 16 February 2018

As frantic efforts continued to keep the crisis-gripped National Unity Government together, Law and Order Minister Sagala Ratnayaka, a close ally of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, took the fall and announced his resignation yesterday.

On his official Facebook page, Minister Ratnayaka announced that he had informed the UNP parliamentary group last morning that he would not continue as Minister for Law and Order.
“I told the Prime Minister this morning that I am willing to sacrifice any position for the party and do everything I can for the good of the UNP. I informed the UNP parliamentary group that this was a personal decision in order to strengthen the party and my loyalty to the party remains as strong as ever,” Ratnayaka’s announcement said.

Ratnayaka is the fourth UNP minister to be axed since the Unity Government was established in September 2015. Ratnayaka’s resignation is reportedly precipitated by swirling allegations within the Government and even inside the UNP that Premier Wickremesinghe’s ally had failed to successfully investigate and prosecute members of the Rajapaksa regime suspected of corruption and financial crimes and high-profile murders and assaults, highly-placed political sources told the Daily FT.

During the parliamentary group meeting held at Temple Trees on Thursday, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe explained that a Cabinet reshuffle could be on the cards and MPs discussed it was best to try and stay in the unity coalition rather than strike out as an independent government.

However, the struggle to change the leadership in the UNP has continued in spite of this general agreement, with several deputy ministers and state ministers escalating calls for Wickremesinghe’s removal, the Daily FT learns. Several UNP deputy ministers have been vocal in their calls for leadership changes at several internal party discussions held over the past several days, authoritative sources told the Daily FT.

President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe conferred again in what have become nearly daily late night talks about the future of the ruling coalition. Both leaders and their aides are being tight-lipped about the discussions.

The UNP showing signs of favouring a continuation of the National Unity Government comes amid attempts by the SLFP/UPFA to force the Premier’s resignation and form a Government with the support of the Joint Opposition and other parties in Parliament.

Political circles were abuzz with rumours of potential crossovers and counter-crossovers, with reports also emerging of major backroom horse-trading by both the UNP and the SLFP kept posturing to show a simple majority in the House.

Stirring the pot yesterday was former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, fresh from the victory a party with his backing secured in last week’s local government election. Speaking to reporters at the Abhayaramaya Temple in Narahenpita last afternoon, the former President, during a Bodhi Pooja at the temple, said: “We are ready to govern together with the SLFP.”

Rajapaksa also categorically denied claims by Cabinet Spokesman Rajitha Senaratne that he had telephoned Premier Wickremesinghe to ask him not to resign.

Meanwhile, President Sirisena met with SLFP electorate organisers from all over the island at the President’s House in Colombo 1 last evening. SLFP General Secretary Duminda Dissanayake and party MPs also attended the meeting.

For months the UNP and SLFP – the two main parties in the governing coalition - have battled dysfunction and struggled to achieve policy coherence, trading blame for mismanagement and accusing each other of failing to rule by the principles of good governance.

The crisis came to a head after both ruling parties were routed in an electoral contest to secure power in local councils across the island, with the Rajapaksa-backed SLPP winning two-thirds of the councils up for grabs. 

 25% quota for women has to be implemented immediately - Colombo Mayor elect Rosy Senanayake

Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:14 am SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

Feb 16, Colombo: The United National Party mayor-elect for the Colombo Municipal Council Rosy Senanayake has urged the Chairman of the Election Commission Mahinda Deshapriya to immediately implement the requirement of 25 percent quota for women in the local government authorities.

In a letter addressed to the Elections Commission Chairman referring to his statement that meeting the requirement of 25 percent women representation in the local government bodies is difficult, the Mayor-elect said not implementing the measure is "disingenuous and in bad faith".

"To now say that this minimum 25% of women council members cannot be implemented is disingenuous and in bad faith," she said.

"Commission of Elections and the Political Parties are under both a legal and moral obligation to implement the current law and ensure that all Councils are constituted with a minimum of 2596 of women members and I strongly urge them to do so without delay."

Full text of the mayor-elect's statement:

I am dismayed at the news that the implementation of the 25% quota for women in local government elections is being questioned in the context of the election held on 10th February 2018. The 2017 Local Authorities Elections Act, which amended the Local Authorities Ordinance, was successfully brought before Parliament by the Prime Minister, Mr Ranil Wickramasinghe, and was the result of 20 years of agitation by women working on the ground around the country. The Act was passed in unanimously in Parliament with not a single vote being cast against it. As one of the driving forces behind the provision, I can say with certainty that the law on the minimum representation of women is clear-cut. Under section 27F of the amended Ordinance, "not less than twenty five percent of the total number of members in each local authority shall be women members." The section is unambiguous and straightforward; it is not open to interpretation.

Under the Ordinance, a minimum of 1096 of nominees from each political party for election through the Ward system has to be women while a minimum of 5096 of nominees on the separate additional persons List of each party has also to be women. This formulation was put together with the sole aim of ensuring that a minimum of 2596 of the members in each and every Council are women. i should know; as I said. I was very much at the forefront of ensuring that the new law included this 2596 minimum of women members of local councils. This was a hard won provision and brought to fruition nearly 20 years of hard work by women's organizations and women's rights advocates. The law was hailed both within the country and outside as a progressive measure that increased opportunities for women to enter the political arena and become leaders in local Councils. On 10th February of this year, the country went to vote with the clear expectation that for the first time in the history of Sri Lanka a minimum of 2596 of their council members would be women.

To now say that this minimum 2596 of women council members cannot be implemented is disingenuous and in bad faith. The minimum 2596 quota is clear both from the letter of the law and the intentions of those who drafted it and the Parliament that passed it. Neither the Commission of Elections nor the Political Parties should consider adhering to this law to be "unfair" or "burdensome." The law cannot be set aside nor the clear intent of the law be defeated just because some parties now have to nominate more women from their Lists than they expected to. To disregard the law would not only be discriminatory towards women but also circumvent the democratic process and the expectations of the electorate.

If in the future, it is necessary to amend the law to further clarify the details of how exactly women members are allocated by each political party in different circumstances in order to ensure the 2596 minimum of women members. I will fully engage with and support that process. In the meantime, however, the Commission of Elections and the Political Parties are under both a legal and moral obligation to implement the current law and ensure that all Councils are constituted with a minimum of 2596 of women members and I strongly urge them to do so without delay.