Sunday, October 28, 2018

SIRISENA’S ACTION HAS PLUNGED THE COUNTRY IN TO A POLITICAL CRISIS: FOLLOW THE DUE PROCESS – NPC

28/10/2018

The dismissal of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe following the withdrawal of the SLFP headed by President Maithripala Sirisena from the government alliance has plunged the country into a political crisis. The president has appointed former president Mahinda Rajapaksa as the new prime minister. The changing of governments and leaders is part and parcel of democracy. But due process needs to be followed, the constitution must not be not violated and the Rule of Law must prevail when such changes take place. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has contested his dismissal, and the appointment of a new Prime Minister, on the grounds that it does not conform to the 19th Amendment to the constitution. The legality of the Prime Minister’s dismissal needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

Despite violent conflicts in the past, Sri Lanka can take pride in the fact that transfer of power to successive administrations was achieved through democratic electoral processes. Parliamentary democracy is a public process not a secret enterprise. The most urgent need is for Parliament to meet and find ways and means to resolve the crisis. Therefore the National Peace Council is not in agreement with the President’s action in proroguing Parliament until November 16. We call on the President and Speaker to immediately convene Parliament to enable the person with majority support to be declared the Prime Minister.

Even as the political crisis continues the National Peace Council notes the need to maintain discipline in institutions to prevent individuals taking laws into their own hands. Sri Lanka can ill afford unruly takeover of media and other government institutions that can lead to violence between competing political interests. Law enforcement officials need to ensure that the Rule of Law is maintained at all costs despite their own political leanings.

It is particularly distressing to us that the steady progress that the country was making in the area of post-war reconciliation could be jeopardized as a result of the political instability that has now besets the polity. In the course of this year the government alliance set up the Office of Missing Persons, returned military occupied land to the civilian population in the north and east, passed legislation to establish an Office for Reparations and the cabinet of ministers approved draft legislation for a Truth Commission. We strongly affirm that these are achievements that need to be built upon and not reversed.

Sri Lanka: Political Turmoil Puts Rights At Risk

Failure to Address Past Abuses Underlies Crisis

Mahinda Rajapaksa speaks at UN headquarters in New York, September 22, 2010.

October 27, 2018

(New York) – Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision on October 26, 2018, to appoint former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as prime minister has raised fears about a return to past abusive practices in the country, Human Rights Watch said today. The sudden announcement to sack Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe, which he contends violates parliamentary processes and the constitution, was made without informing parliament or the cabinet.

“Rajapaksa’s return to high office without any justice for past crimes raises chilling concerns for human rights in Sri Lanka,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “The current government’s failure to bring justice to victims of war crimes under the Rajapaksa government reopens the door for past abusers to return to their terrible practices.”

Rajapaksa’s administration was implicated in egregious violations during the final stages of Sri Lanka’s brutal civil war and in suppression of freedoms of the media, expression, and association. Military forces under Rajapaksa’s authority indiscriminately attacked civilians and summarily executed prisoners during the final months of fighting against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). People with suspected links to the LTTE were subject to arbitrary arrest, torture and sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, and enforced disappearances. Journalists and activists critical of the Rajapaksa government faced harassment, arrest, and even physical attack.

Rajapaksa’s return to high office without any justice for past crimes raises chilling concerns for human rights in Sri Lanka.

Brad Adams

Asia Director

Following presidential elections on January 8, 2015, in which he defeated Rajapaksa, President Sirisena announced a 100-day program of reforms, a return to the rule of law, and overall good governance. For the most part, the broadly repressive policies and practices of the Rajapaksa government were lifted.

In stark contrast with the Rajapaksa government, the Sirisena government engaged openly with the international community and domestic civil society groups. At the United Nations Human Rights Council in October 2015, the government supported a consensus resolution that included four transitional justice mechanisms for truth and accountability. The resolution facilitated international involvement in the prosecution of those responsible for serious abuses during the civil war. While an Office on Missing Persons was created to provide answers for those searching for loved ones, the other commitments, particularly regarding accountability, have languished.

Under the 19th amendment to Sri Lanka’s constitution, the president may only appoint a new prime minister under certain conditions, including the death of the prime minister, resignation in writing, or a vote of no confidence in parliament against the government for a listed set of reasons.

Since Rajapaksa was sworn in as prime minister, there have been reports that his supporters took over the state media, which had become very independent under the Sirisena government. State television does not appear to have broadcast Wickremasinghe’s objections to Rajapaksa’s appointment. Mangala Samaraweera, a senior member of Wickremasinghe’s party and minister of finance and media, described the political developments as “an anti-democratic coup.”

“The media outlets, rights organizations, and victims’ groups who had been vocal and free from government threats now fear a return to anxiety and fear,” Adams said. “It is critical that governments that helped Sri Lanka’s return to a much more rights-respecting government act to ensure those gains are not lost.”

UN Secretary General urges Sri Lanka to respect democracy, constitution

Oct 28, 2018

ECONOMYNEXT - The United Nations Secretary General António Guterres has expressed concern over Sri Lanka's political crisis and has asked for democracy and constitution to be respected, his spokesman said.

"The Secretary-General is following the latest developments in Sri Lanka with great concern," Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesman for the Secretary-General said in a statement.

"He calls on the Government to respect democratic values and constitutional provisions and process, uphold the rule of law and ensure the safety and security of all Sri Lankans.

"The Secretary-General urges all parties to exercise restraint and address the unfolding situation in a peaceful manner."

Sri Lanka was plunged into a political crisis Friday as President Maithripala Sirisena appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister and suspended parliament until November 16 as incumbent Ranil Wickremesinghe has insisted that he is still Prime Minister as his removal was not legal.

India, the European Union and the US has also called on Sri Lanka to respect the constitution and maintain calm. (Colombo/Oct28/2018)

Bishop Of Colombo Condemns Attempted Removal Of Ranil Wickremesinge As PM

OCTOBER 28, 2018

Bishop of Colombo Rt. Rev. Dhiloraj Canagasabey, in a strongly-worded letter, has condemned the attempted removal of Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister.

Rt. Revd Dhiloraj Canagasabey

‘The Diocese of Colombo of the Church of Ceylon is extremely perturbed by the events that unfolded on the night of October 26, 2018 , when the President proceeded to swear in the former President at the Prime Minster, when the incumbent Prime Minister duly and legitimately appointed under the Constitution continued in office,’ the letter said.

‘The action has plunged the country into more instability at a time when the Sri Lankan and global economies are in politico-economic turmoil. This unfortunate action will only harm our international standing, cause even more loss of confidence in the country and lead to a further deterioration of our economy which will severely impact the already difficult day to day lives of our people, especially the poor.’

Bishop Canagasabey said the 133rd Annual Council of the Diocese of Colombo, which had met from October 25-27, 2018 had adopted a petition condemning the attempted removal of the Prime Minister of the country.

‘The President was voted into power by the majority of the people of this country with a mandate to ensure good governance, uphold the rule of law and democratic principles. On more than one occasion, he gave solemn promises to the people to do so. He has also given his oath to uphold the Constitution of the country,’ the letter said.

‘That short-term expediency should not take precedence over ethical standards is something rooted with the teaching or all religions that we claim to profess in this land. These high moral teachings must be our guide and the lamp that must light our actions. We call upon the President to safeguard the Constitution and honour the mandate given to him.’

Bishop Canagasabey said the Church of Ceylon wished to reiterate that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and called on the public service, the police and the armed forces to remain faithful to the constitution and to conduct themselves in a manner worthy of their office.

New PreMier appointment: it’s legal and constitutional

2018-10-29

he United States (US) and European Union (EU) have issued statements requesting the Government to act according to the constitution. However, Ranil Wickremesinghe continues to pursue his claim as the Prime Minister and that his removal was unconstitutional. Both the removal and the new appointment are published in the Government Gazette. Articles (sections/Art) herein are as amended by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.
There are two possible arguments establishing the correctness and the constitutionality of the act of the President in appointing Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister.

Argument 1

The President is the Head of the State, Head of the Executive and of the Government, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (Art.30). He gets executive

power directly from the people at the Presidential Election. People’s Sovereign power of franchise is exercised at the election of the President (Art.4) Sovereignty of the people is inalienable (Art.3). The People entrust executive power to the President with the expectation that he would use such powers for their benefit: This is a fundamental duty and the responsibility of the President. The Constitution vests in the president the authority to decide the best manner in which such powers are to be executed through the machinery of the Government. Therefore, the constitution confers sole authority on the President (the head of Government) to decide as to the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers.

The Cabinet of Ministers is charged with the direction and control of the Government (Art. 42(1). The cabinet is collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament (Art. 42(2). The President is a member and also the Head of the Cabinet (Art. 42(3). In order to empower the President with the maximum liberty and authority, the constitution vests in him the discretion to decide the Prime-Minister. Article 42(4) provides as follows:
“The President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament”
The opinion of the President cannot be questioned or tested. He is expected to evaluate the prevailing condition and decide the person in the best interest of the people and the country. The President is expected to take into consideration all the circumstances and information at his hand in formulating his opinion.
He who has apparent authority to “Command parliament” may not be the same person who can “command the confidence” of Parliament. In the present scenario, Ranil Wickremesinghe claims that Parliamentary majority is still with him. He does it by taking a physical count of the number of parliamentarians of his party. He assumes that he has the commanding authority over his party members of parliament.

On the other hand the President may have evaluated the confidence of the members on different grounds. He can consider other sources of information such as intelligence reports to do a practical evaluation. In other words the constitution expects the President to apply as an objective test in formulating his opinion. Finally the President seems to have held the opinion that Mahinda Rajapake (MR) commands the confidence of Parliament.
The correctness of President’s opinion can be witnessed with the increasing number of UNP members declaring their willingness to support MR. “Confidence” in the constitution is based on the ‘free will’ of the members. Such ‘confidence’ reflected in Article 42(4) is different from the number of party parliamentarians on whom an artificial force a leader of a party may employ.
The best precedent is the appointment of RW (himself) in January 2015, when UNP was still having only few seats in the Parliament. Ranil was appointed even without officially removing the incumbent Prime Minister, D. M. Jayaratne. Ranil accepted the portfolio without any allegation of any procedural unconstitutionality. Thereafter the new cabinet was appointed. Today he faces the same situation as Jayaratne did in 2015. Therefore RW is stopped from criticizing the same procedure as unconstitutional, from which he benefitted in 2015.

Logically there cannot be two members in the parliament who can command the confidence of Parliament simultaneously. Therefore, with the appointment of MR as the Prime Minister, the removal of RW happens automatically. Principles of interpretation of laws provide that whenever any law gives powers to appoint, it includes the powers to remove also. This principle is embodied into section 14(f) of the Interpretation Ordinance of Sri Lanka.
Therefore it is clear that the President has lawfully appointed MR as the Prime Minister in terms of Article 42(4) of the Constitution read with section 14(f) of the Interpretation Ordinance.
When the Prime Minister ceases to hold office by removal or otherwise, the Cabinet of Ministers shall become dissolved by operation of Article 48. However, there is a crucial discrepancy between the Sinhala and English texts of the Constitutions. The word “removal” is stated only in the Sinhala text. When there is an inconsistency between two texts, the law directs to consider the Sinhala version as prevailing over the English text. The act of “removal” of PM can only be done by the President. Such removal is constitutionally recognized in Articles 47 and 48 (Sinhala text). Therefore with the publication of the Gazette removing RW from the office of Prime Minister, the Cabinet also became dissolved by operation of Article 48. Therefore there is no cabinet of ministers functioning under the premiership of RW from October 26, 2018.

Argument 2

Ranil Wickremesinghe seems to be relying on Article 46(2) of the constitution, which reads as follows;
“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”.
It is argued – prima facie-that this Article leaves no room here to remove the Prime Minister. Even if Article 46(2) was treated in isolation, still it is subject to the condition “throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers continues to function...” It means once the cabinet was dissolved(for whatever reason) the Prime Minister too would cease to hold office by operation of law.
Until October 26, 2018, Sri Lanka was governed by a (purported) “National Government”, which was created with the passing of the following resolution of the Parliament on September 3, 2015.

“Whereas the UNP, which obtained the highest number of seats in Parliament has formed a National Government, Parliament determines in terms of Article 46(4) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka that the number of Ministers in the Cabinet of Ministers shall not exceed 48 and the number of Ministers who are not Cabinet Ministers and the number of Deputy Ministers shall not exceed 45.”
“National Government means a Government formed by the recognized political party or the independent group which obtains the highest number of seats in Parliament together with the other recognized political parties or the independent groups” (Art. 46(5).
The previous cabinet exceeded the limit of 30 under the authority of the Parliament obtained under the aforesaid resolution passed in terms of Article 46(4) of the Constitution. The largest constituent party joined UNP to form the national government was SLFP, which again is a constituent of UPFA. On October 26, 2018, the UPFA withdrew from the national government. As a result the Parliamentary sanction granted under Article 46(4) to the UNP to maintain a cabinet of ministers above the limit of 30 also came to an end. In such circumstances, the cabinet of Ministers ceased to have constitutional authority to function from October 26, 2018. Accordingly in terms of Article 46(2), Ranil Wickremesinghe, Prime Minister (of the National Government) discontinued to hold office from that date.
Therefore in the absence of a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of Ministers the President had no legal obstacle to appoint Mahinda Rajapaksa as the next Prime Minister of Sri Lanka.

Appointment of Cabinet of Ministers

As the present portfolios are structured to meet the requirements of a National Government, they have to be redefined in compliance with Article 43(1) to meet conditions of a non-National Government. In doing so, the President has to consult the Prime Minister. President appoints ministers on the advice of the PM (Art 43(2). The President will not incline to consult or get advice from Ranil as his recognition as PM is now ended. President has already issued official advice to the state officials confirming the dissolution of the previous cabinet of ministers.
Therefore, the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as the new Prime Minister is both lawful and consistent with the constitution. On the other hand there is no legal basis in the claims of Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Paradise Lost? Preliminary Notes on a Constitutional Coup

Featured image courtesy Alexander Nikiforov

ASANGA WELIKALA-10/27/2018

There were three dramatic announcements on the evening of Friday 26^th October 2018 from the Presidential Secretariat, which occurred in the following order: (a) the announcement of the withdrawal of the UPFA from the government; (b) the swearing-in of Mahinda Rajapaksa before President Maithripala Sirisena as the Prime Minister; and (c) the announcement that the President has informed Ranil Wickremesinghe in writing that he has been removed from the office of Prime Minister under Article 42(4).

Even if the legality of the procedure and the clarity and meaning of the relevant constitutional provisions can be debated, the fact that the event was planned in complete secrecy, with no consultation of Parliament or giving the serving Prime Minister and Cabinet the courtesy of even a short prior intimation before the course of action was made public, that it was suddenly carried out on a Friday evening, and that it has taken the country by total surprise, point to some extremely questionable motives.

Indeed, the whole set of circumstances suggest not the way a change of government ought to occur in a democracy, but the sharp practices associated with a constitutional coup, which is likely to lead to a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional coup because the serving Prime Minister has not legally ceased to function in office before a new Prime Minister has been appointed. And it will lead to an unprecedented constitutional crisis because there are now two competing Prime Ministers and their parties jostling for power, authority, and legitimacy at the very heart of the state. Until one of these persons – Mahinda Rajapaksa or Ranil Wickremesinghe – can demonstrate that he has the confidence of Parliament through the support of a majority of MPs, and force the President to accept the will of Parliament, the crisis will not be resolved. Only time will tell what long-term damage this does to Sri Lanka’s constitutional fabric.

After the Nineteenth Amendment was enacted in 2015, the Prime Minister can only cease to hold office by death, resignation, by ceasing to be a Member of Parliament, or if the government as a whole has lost the confidence of Parliament by a defeat on the throne speech, the budget, or a vote of no-confidence (Articles 46(2) and 48). Since the Constitution after the Nineteenth Amendment specifies these ways in which the Prime Minister ceases to hold office, and has impliedly removed the previous power of the President to remove the Prime Minister at will, it follows that there are no other ways in which this can happen. In particular, the President can only appoint another Prime Minister where the serving Prime Minister has lost office in any one of these ways.

It is clear that the serving Prime Minister has not ceased to hold office in any one of these ways. Rather, the President has purportedly removed the Prime Minister from office by acting under the provisions of Article 42(4), which states that the President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament. The President seems to have taken these words rather too literally than is constitutionally permissible. When this provision speaks of the President’s opinion, it contemplates not the subjective and personal opinion of the President as to which MP is best suited to be Prime Minister, but an objective and constitutional view formed by reference to who can command the confidence of Parliament. This is usually, although not always, the leader of the largest party represented in Parliament.

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe survived a vote of no-confidence by a substantial majority earlier in the year. No other canvassing of Parliament’s confidence has occurred since then, or before the purported appointment of Rajapaksa tonight, and therefore the President can neither constitutionally remove a Prime Minister who has not lost the confidence of Parliament nor appoint another in his place.

It must also be stated that Article 42(2) speaks only of the appointment of the Prime Minister by the President and says nothing about the removal of the Prime Minister by the President. While the power of dismissal could be assumed as inherent to the power of appointment in the constitution prior to 2015, the Nineteenth Amendment has changed this by now providing expressly for the specific ways in which the Prime Minister can be removed (under the previously noted Articles 46(2) and 48). That these procedures have not been followed render the purported presidential acts tonight illegal and unconstitutional.

If the parliamentary numbers have changed since Wickremesinghe’s confidence vote in April in favour of a majority now supportive of Rajapaksa by, among other things, the withdrawal of the UPFA from the national government – presumably the basis for tonight’s presidential acts – then it is also not clear why Sirisena and Rajapaksa did not choose to take the constitutional path to removing Wickremesinghe by defeating him in Parliament first. The crisis will be prolonged if Rajapaksa cannot swiftly demonstrate his command of Parliament, but the strategy he and Sirisena have followed tonight shows that they have chosen to seize the political initiative and momentum by the element of surprise, with the probable intention of consolidating their hold on the state machinery and in particular the police and armed forces over the weekend, before conforming to constitutional and parliamentary niceties. They would also quite correctly have concluded that technical illegalities would not effectively be justiciable, because it is unlikely in the extreme that the Sri Lankan courts would risk a venture into such a high-stakes political game.

This kind of behaviour of course is entirely normal in Rajapaksa, and to his credit, he has never pretended to be anything other than a banana republic presidential populist. But Sirisena was elected in 2015 exactly to instantiate changes to curtail this dubious and destructive strain in Sri Lankan politics. His descent from the heroic standard-bearer of high idealism to a despised villain of the lowest form of low politics has been truly Miltonian.

The political dog fight

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and President Maithripala Sirisena

Monday, 29 October 2018

Sri Lanka has experienced a constitutional or rather unconstitutional takeover of the Government. A similar incident happened in 2003 when Wickremesinghe was the Prime Minister where President Kumaratunga took over three ministries of the Government. However Kumaratunga was acting constitutionally when she did so. With the introduction of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, the same thing cannot be said now.

Article 42(4) states that the President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament.

Article 46 (2) is as follows “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.”

In the letter addressed to the PM, the President said that he has appointed him the PM as per the Article 42(4) and he had removed PM from his post according to the powers vested to him according to the Constitution. In the removal letter he has mentioned the Article under which the PM was appointed but carefully avoided to state under which Article the PM was removed. In response to this PM said that he was constitutionally appointed Prime Minister and he command the confidence of the Parliament as contemplated in Article 42(4).

When interpreting Article 46(4) the President’s opinion cannot be based on his personal opinion or the figures given by his advisors that so many members of UNP would cross over but his opinion should be constitutional, which means the person who would command the confidence of the Parliament would be the leader of the party which represents the majority members of the Parliament.

If the President was confident that there would be crossovers from the UNP, he could have followed the constitutional way which means to bring a no confidence movement against the PM in the Parliament. Once he is defeated the President could have appointed a new PM. He has not taken that path but has taken a sudden move to remove the PM and prorogued the Parliament till 16 November. By proroguing Parliament he deprived the right of the PM to show that he has the confidence of the Parliament. The President is taking time to get the support of the members of the Parliament.

Article 42(4) says “who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament.” It is who is likely to command the confidence of the Parliament and not who would be. Prorogue of the Parliament proves that the President at present is not prepared to test his opinion. If he thinks that in future he can get his opinion justified in the Parliament, his move is unconstitutional.

Soon after the 2015 presidential election there was a surge of UPFA members of Parliament towards the UNP. Breaking the practice hitherto followed, they were not accommodated in the UNP but they were taken to the Government as they were based on the principles outlined in the election manifesto. These principles were outlined with the intention of finding out a lasting solution to the ethnic problem faced by the country. This Government failed to meet those aspirations, making a lot of people disappointed and as a result those principles also would be reversed and there would be a tendency to surge the MPs of the UNP towards the UPFA.

With two UNP members, Senanayake and Aluthgamage, defecting and getting the support of a sole EPDP MP, the UPFA needs additional support of 15 more members at the time of writing. The JVP declared that it would not support any party. The TNA also will not support the UPFA. It was reported that the SLMC and ACMC would stand with the UNP. Therefore the President expects the defection of UNP members. Power of the new government will be used for that.

If the new government could not muster the confidence in the Parliament, it will be detrimental to the President. It will be a proof that he has violated the Constitution intentionally. It would be a valid ground to bring an impeachment motion against him, although it is unlikely to impeach him since a two-thirds majority of the Parliament is needed for that.

The President apparently thinks that the people’s power based on the last Local Government elections is behind his move. The Unity Government has taken several steps towards reestablishing democracy in the country. The reverse is quite evident given what happened at Rupavahini soon after the swearing in ceremony of Rajapaksa.

In 2003 as well as 2018 what happened was a launch of a movement against liberalist policies. Having considered the present situation of the country, on the economic front, policies such as entering into bilateral trade agreements are the best. However it seems to be that most of the people prefer protectionist policies and they think that those are nationalistic policies, which are not. Most of the influential people have vested interests when they talk about national policies. However they may not mind to have liberal policies with a nationalist outlook. That may be the reason for not having any protest against selling land and reclaimed land to Chinese by the previous Government.

There is an argument that after the UPFA withdrawing from the Unity Government, the President can appoint a fresh PM and a cabinet of ministers. The sequence of events proves that the President was taking that path. However he should act under explicitly elaborated Articles of the Constitution discussed above.

The political issues behind this move were well known to the country. The two stalwarts of the Yahapalana Government did not see eye-to-eye on many an issue. It was reported that the President interpreted recent incidents related to India as an attempt of the UNP to create a rift between him and India. Rajapaksa would be happy if the judicial processes initiated against his close associates could be stalled. These two requirements would have got together to have the present outcome. It is ironical that a person who pledged to abolish the executive presidency is using executive powers visibly in an ultra vires manner.

Constitutional Crisis in Sri Lanka:

Operation Black Friday

When carefully analysing the facts and events took place since 2015, it is clear that although this is a sudden move, something similar to this could have been expected.

by Diplomatic Affairs Editor- Oct 28, 2018

( October 28, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) On 24th of October 2018 is considered as a Black Friday in the Sri Lankan political history. On this day, the president of Sri Lanka violated the Constitution of the country sacking its Prime Minister paving the way for appointing former president as the new Prime Minister. This move of the president would result in specific consequences on the internal political outlook of the country and its international status as a democratic country. It would undoubtedly create political upheaval in the country pushing back what people achieved since 2015. There are several interpretations of this new development. For the critics of the President Mathripala Sirisena, it is an unconstitutional move based on false assumptions solely to achieve his avaricious aims. They are also of the view that the president has mocked at good governance he promised in 2015 when taking the reign of the presidency. The proponents of this exercise state that to save the country and its economy this move should have been considered. The President of Sri Lanka indicated that as there was a move to assassinate him and the country is heading towards a crisis mainly because of its economic failures he took this decision. For the international community, it is a surprising move as Sri Lanka has been maintaining its democratic traditions since independence and even amidst the bloody war with the LTTE.

When carefully analysing the facts and events took place since 2015, it is clear that although this is a sudden move, something similar to this could have been expected. In this whole episode, we can identify three main characters. They are President Maithripala Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe and former President Mahinda Rajapakse. Each of these characters has some contributions for creating this situation. It is the president, who promised to change the Constitution and abolish the presidency within hundred days. Instead of fulfilling his obligations, he made the environment conducive for him to keep the presidency until the term is over and make the path clear for him to contest in the next presidential election. Indeed, he is greedy for power. In the case of the Prime Minister, he believed in good governance and wanted to introduce a new political culture to Sri Lanka working with the main rival party. He aimed to develop the country in an environment of democracy, political freedom, freedom of expression and the rule of law.

However, all of his actions displayed that he was not marching forward with the required vigour and speed but with certain hesitations. He seems to be applying a reductionist approach towards the realisation of his aims. Former President’s primary goal was to create the environment suitable for his son to become the next president of the country. However, as a seasoned politician, he acts carefully and vigilantly. As such, it is somewhat surprising to see him following the path of the president. A closer look at the manoeuvring of these characters, the background to the Black Friday Operation could understand. We should not also forget the role of certain international actors in operation too.

Undoubtedly, President of Sri Lanka has been entrapped by the people surrounding him. With the influence of others and to fulfil his selfish desires, he has been trying to win in the next presidential election

Undoubtedly, President of Sri Lanka has been entrapped by the people surrounding him. With the influence of others and to fulfil his selfish desires, he has been trying to win in the next presidential election. For that, he needs the support of the former President. Very often the President opposed to working with the Prime Minister and blocked certain positive moves of the Prime Minister preventing him from emerging as a possible challenger during the next Presidential election. When all steps of the President backfired, he created a story that RAW is plotting to kill him. This story boomeranged as India displayed its dismay towards this unrealistically fabricated story.

On the other hand, rejecting the President, India welcomes the Prime Minister. It is a fact that no Sri Lankan government can survive antagonising India. In the meantime, media reports indicated that China has been opposing leasing of a part of Colombo harbour to an Indian company and allowing India to manage Mattla airport. These two situations might have resulted in China to influence the President to take specific actions to prevent India’s intervention in Sri Lanka with the blessing of the Prime Minister. Therefore, greediness of the President coupled with the Chinese interests played an essential role in the Black Friday Operation.

Former President has been very carefully playing cards in the political arena in Sri Lanka. Especially, with the failed no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister and failed political march to Colombo took place a few months ago, he has realised that it was not the apt time for him to grab power. When the people have been rejecting the coalition government mainly due to the rising cost of living, the introduction of special courts to expedite cases against some of his family members, and his inability to defeat the budget proposal in the next month, he might have agreed with the president to become a part of the Operation Black Friday.

The President is expecting the support of the former President at the next presidential election creating an alliance with the former President. Mahinda Rajapakse wants to win in the upcoming parliamentary election to be elected as the Prime Minister to pave the way for his son to contest in the 2024 presidential election and to stop all judicial proceedings against him and his family. The question is whether Mahinda Rajapakse could secure a majority at the net parliamentary session to oust Ranil Wickramasinghe. It depends on how both groups could get the members of parliament into their camps. At this point, money plays a vital role to buy the votes. It would be an opportune moment for certain international actors to appear providing funds.

The whole country is looking at whether Ranil Wickramasinghe could be able to save the country from sliding towards a dictatorial path. His main weaker point was his inability to translate political freedom into economic prosperity. Therefore, certain politicians and the majority of the people are angry with him. Thus, securing the support of the members of the parliament and the people is crucial for his survival. Even after his survival, he needs to rethink about his political strategy. More importantly, if Mahinda Rajapkase secures his victory, Sri Lanka would face numerous difficulties in the international arena. It would lose all it gains and even might face sanctions from certain countries. Therefore, defeating the Black Friday Operation is the most crucial moment in Sri Lanka political history. The most likely outcome would be dissolving of parliament after 16th of November 2018.

Saturday, October 27, 2018

Palestinian militants agree truce after exchange of fire with Israel

An explosion is seen during Israeli air strikes in Gaza October 27, 2018. REUTERS/Ahmed Zakot

Nidal al-Mughrabi, Maayan Lubell-OCTOBER 27, 2018

GAZA/JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Palestinian militants said on Saturday they would halt attacks into Israel from the Gaza Strip after they fired the heaviest rocket salvoes across the border since August.

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, one of the armed groups that operates in Gaza, said it fired the rockets in retaliation for Israel’s killing of four Palestinian protesters on Friday.

Israel in response struck dozens of targets in the Gaza Strip on Saturday.

A spokesman for the militants said an Egyptian-mediated truce had been reached.

“After contacts between the Islamic Jihad leadership and the brothers in Egypt it was agreed that a comprehensive ceasefire will begin immediately,” spokesman Daoud Shehab said. “The Islamic Jihad will abide by the ceasefire if the occupation (Israel) does the same.”

Egyptian security officials have been talking separately to Israeli and Palestinian leaders in an attempt to restore calm along the border.

An Israeli military spokeswoman declined comment on Shehab’s remarks and there was no
immediate response from other Israeli officials. Israel rarely acknowledges it has reached a truce with Gaza’s militant groups which it designates as terrorist organisations.

Earlier, Israeli military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Jonathan Conricus accused Syria and Iran of involvement in the rocket attack.

“Orders and incentives were given from Damascus with a clear involvement of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards al-Quds force,” Conricus told reporters. “Our response is not limited geographically.”

Israel regularly accuses Iran of aiding Gaza militants, but rarely levels the charge in connection with a specific rocket attack.

WEEKLY PROTESTS

Shehab dismissed the allegation as “an Israeli attempt to escape its responsibility” for Friday’s protest deaths.

There were no casualties reported from the heavy exchange of fire in either Israel or Gaza, which is controlled by the Islamist Hamas group.

The Israeli military said it holds Hamas accountable for the events in Gaza. It said its air force hit more than 80 targets including one used by Hamas as a headquarters, in response to more than 30 rockets launched into Israel. There was no immediate comment from Hamas.

The flare-up began after the four Palestinians were killed on Friday during weekly protests. Israel said its forces were attacked with explosive devices and some demonstrators breached the border.

Palestinians have been protesting along the frontier since March 30, demanding an end to an Israeli blockade and the right to return to lands from which they fled or were driven from when Israel was founded in 1948.

According to the Palestinian Health Ministry, 213 Gazans have been killed by Israeli forces during the protests. An Israeli soldier was killed by a Palestinian sniper.

About two million Palestinians are packed into the Gaza Strip which is in a deep economic crisis. Israel says it keeps a naval blockade and tight control of its land crossings with the enclave for security reasons.

Israel has struck scores of times inside Syria during the seven-year civil war there, at what it has said were Iranian targets or Teheran’s transfers of weapons to Hezbollah fighters.

Slideshow (3 Images)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a rare visit to Oman on Friday. Israel and some Gulf states share an interest in curbing Iran’s influence in the region.

Oman’s foreign affairs minister Yousuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah said on Saturday the sultanate was offering ideas to help Israel and the Palestinians come together but was not acting as mediator.

Peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians broke down in 2014.

Writing by Maayan Lubell; Editing by John Stonestreet

Netanyahu expresses grief as US synagogue attack leaves at least 11 dead

Israeli Diaspora Minister Naftali Bennett will travel to Pittsburgh to meet members of Jewish community and participate in funerals

Police rapid response team on site of mass shooting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on Saturday (AFP)

Sunday 28 October 2018

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday expressed grief and solidarity with the US, after a gunman opened fire in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, killing 11 people and wounding six others.

Netanyahu (AFP/file photo)

The shooter opened fire during a baby-naming ceremony, according to the Associated Press.

"I was heartbroken and appalled by the murderous attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue today," Netanyahu said in a video message.

Diaspora Minister Naftali Bennett said he was travelling to Pittsburgh to meet members of the Jewish community and participate in the funerals. "When Jews are murdered in Pittsburgh, the people of Israel feel pain," Reuters quoted him as saying in a statement.

Pittsburgh's public safety director Wendell Hissrich confirmed that 11 people were dead and six had been wounded, AFP said.

Four police officers who rushed to the scene were among the wounded.

The shooter will face federal charges that carry the death penalty, the US Justice Department said.

"Hatred and violence on the basis of religion can have no place in our society," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said. "These alleged crimes are reprehensible and utterly repugnant to the values of this nation. Accordingly, the Department of Justice will file hate crimes and other criminal charges against the defendant, including charges that could lead to the death penalty."

Suspect in custody

Police said a suspect was in custody after the attack at the Tree of Life Congregation in Pittsburgh's Squirrel Hill neighborhood.

Authorities confirmed the suspect was Robert Bowers, whose actions Scott Brady, the US attorney for Pennsylvania's Western District, said "represent the worst of humanity." Brady said criminal charges may be filed as early as Saturday.

Before it was deleted on Saturday morning, a social media account believed to belong to Bowers was filled with anti-Jewish slurs and references to anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, the New York Times reported.

In January, an account under his name was created on Gab, a social network that bills itself as a free speech haven, the Times said. The app, which grew out of claims of anti-conservative bias by Facebook and Twitter, is a popular gathering place for alt-right activists and white nationalists whose views are unwelcome on other social media platforms. Early members included the right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos and Andrew Anglin, the founder of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website.

Shortly after Bowers was identified as the suspect in the shooting, Gab confirmed that the name on the account, which was verified, matched that of the suspect. The company archived the account before taking it offline, and released a statement saying it was cooperating with law enforcement, the New York Times said.

Pittsburgh city officials said the shooting was being investigated as a federal hate crime. It comes amid a rash of high-profile attacks in an increasingly divided country, including the series of pipe bombs mailed over the past week to prominent Democrats and former officials.

The shooting also immediately reignited the longstanding national debate about guns: President Donald Trump said synagogues and churches should have armed guards, while Pennsylvania's Democratic governor said that "dangerous weapons are putting our citizens in harm's way."

"It is a very horrific crime scene. It's one of the worst that I've seen and I've been on some plane crashes," said a visibly moved Hissrich, the city's public safety director.

READ MORE ►

Trump condemned by UK PM for 'wrong tweets' promoting fascist hate group

Trump - who has been accused of fueling hate with divisive rhetoric - briefly considered scrapping his Illinois campaign rally on Saturday, but finally decided to maintain it.

Trump said the outcome might have been different if the synagogue "had some kind of protection" from an armed guard and suggested that might be a good idea for all churches and synagogues.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf called the shooting an "absolute tragedy" in a statement that made reference to calls for tighter gun control laws.

"We must all pray and hope for no more loss of life," Wolf said. "But we have been saying "this one is too many" for far too long. Dangerous weapons are putting our citizens in harm's way."

"The entire people of Israel grieve with the families of the dead," Netanyahu said. "We stand together with the Jewish community of Pittsburgh. We stand together with the American people in the face of this horrendous anti-Semitic brutality. And we all pray for the speedy recovery of the wounded."

World Jewish Congress President Ronald S Lauder called the shooting "an attack not just on the Jewish community, but on America as a whole.