At least 56,000 people have been killed in armed violence in Yemen since January 2016, independent research group finds
Tally does not take into account deaths caused by famine or disease, however (AFP/File photo)
Monday 29 October 2018
At least 56,000 people have been killed in armed violence in Yemen since January 2016, according to data collected by an independent research group, a tally that is more than five times higher than previously reported.
The new figure encompasses the deaths of both combatants and civilians in Yemen between January 2016 and 20 October 2018, explained Andrea Carboni, a research analyst at the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED).
It does not take into account the Yemenis who have died as a result of the humanitarian crisis engulfing the country and its related problems, such as diseases and malnutrition.
"The fatality numbers refer to the number of people that were killed as a direct consequence of armed violence," Carboni told Middle East Eye on Monday.
That violence includes air strikes and artillery fire from Saudi-led coalition forces currently fighting in Yemen, as well as armed clashes between various factions fighting inside the country, such as the Houthis.
Middle East Eye could not independently verify the 56,000 number.
Saudi Arabia launched a military campaign in Yemen in early 2015 to root out Houthi rebels, who had taken over the capital, Sanaa, and deposed the then-president,Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi.
The Saudi-led coalition has been accused of committing war crimes in Yemen, such as the deliberate bombing of hospitals, buses and other civilian infrastructure. The Houthis have also been accused of taking hostages and arbitarily detaining and torturing opponents - all potential war crimes.
However, as Yemen has become increasingly closed off to outside observers and journalists amid the devastating conflict, reliable information on the number of deaths has been hard to come by.
Journalists and humanitarian workers have often cited a figure of 10,000 deaths, but that total has remained static since 2016 despite the ongoing war.
The number was also an underestimate when it was released, Carboni said, since it was based on deaths that were reported at medical facilities in the country.
"Most of the people, the casualties, do not get to medical centres. That number was actually missing a lot of the violence and the casualties that are related to it," he said.
New figure likely an underestimate
Based on an estimate of around 2,000 fatalities every month in Yemen, total deaths between the start of the conflict in 2015 to the end of this year is expected to sit between 70,000 and 80,000, Carboni said.
The numbers are collated from secondary sources, he said, such as international news agencies, reliable local news outlets, and NGO reports.
He said having an accurate figure is important because "fatalities are the single most difficult piece of information you can get in a conflict context".
Still, Carboni said the 56,000 number is most likely an underestimate, as well.
"These are estimates based on the methodology we’ve applied elsewhere. They are likely also to be an underestimate themselves," he said.
If you compare the scale of the violence and the destruction ... having a fatality number that reflects [that] as correctly as possible, I think it’s important
-Andrea Carboni, ACLED research analyst
He added that three-quarters of all civilian deaths in Yemen are attributable to the Saudi-led coalition.
"If you compare the scale of the violence and the destruction which is also reflected in the humanitarian crisis and all other forms of devastation that Yemen has suffered, having a fatality number that reflects [that] as correctly as possible, I think it’s important," he said.
Last week, Oxfam reported that since August, at least one civilian has been killed every three hours in fighting in Yemen.
In addition, more than 1.1 million cases of cholera have been reported in the last 18 months, including 2,000 that proved fatal, the charity said.
"Every single life lost to this shameful conflict, be it through armed attacks, or through starvation and disease, should be an international outrage," said Muhsin Siddiquey, Oxfam's country director in Yemen, in a statement.
"Backers of all the warring parties should realise that they are complicit in this man-made crisis."
The story of a man who ended up needing a liver transplant after taking green tea capsules has brought the topic of dietary supplements back into the news. What are some of the dangers of supplements and what are the health benefits?
When Jim McCants started taking green tea pills he had hoped he was giving his health a shot in the arm.
Experts point out that experiences like that of Mr McCants, are "extremely unusual".
In the UK, supplements are subject to EU regulations over their safety and the health claims manufacturers make about the products.
Approved supplements bought from reputable businesses are almost always going to be safe, provided the manufacturer's instructions are followed, doctors say.
But it is wrong to assume that food supplements do not sometimes have the potential to be harmful, says Dr Wayne Carter, from the University of Nottingham.
If you take supplements in quantities above recommended levels there are risks.
While in many cases excess levels of a supplement will be excreted, there is the potential for it to be toxic, particularly to the liver, which detoxifies the substances we consume.
"I think sometimes the idea that people take on board is 'this is good for me, therefore if I take even more of it, it will be even better'," Dr Carter says.
"This isn't without risk."
Jim McCants needed an urgent liver transplant after taking green tea pills
There is also a potential danger in indiscriminately taking many supplements at the same time, says Dr Carter.
Sometimes they can interact with one another - that is, one supplement may strengthen the effects of another - while in other cases they might contain one or more of the same nutrients, potentially leading to excess levels.
Vitamin D supplements are also recommended in babies, children between the ages of one and four, and people who are not often exposed to the sun.
This includes those who are frail or housebound or usually wear clothes that cover up most of their skin when outdoors.
The rest of the population is advised to consider taking a Vitamin D supplement.
Image captionThe NHS says most people can get all of the vitamins and minerals they need from a balanced dietA lack of vitamin D, which we mostly get from the sun, can lead to bone deformities such as rickets in children, and bone pain caused by a condition called osteomalacia in adults.
Dr Benjamin Jacobs, a consultant paediatrician at the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, said: "A hundred years ago most children in London had rickets. That was basically abolished by the practice of giving children a vitamin supplement."
An injection of vitamin K is also offered to babies within the first 24 hours of their life to prevent a rare but serious blood disorder.
'Constantly evolving science'
Dr Jacobs said supplements are also important for people with either restricted diets or allergies.
However, in many other supplements the evidence of there being a benefit for most people is less clear.
For example, the NHS says that most people do not need to take other vitamin supplements and can get all the vitamins and minerals they need, apart from vitamin D, from a balanced diet.
The benefits of fish oil pills, a supplement linked to a wide range of purported benefits, from improved heart health to boosted brain power, are also not conclusive.
Sam Jennings, a director of Berry Ottaway & Associates Ltd, a consultancy that works with supplement manufacturers, said nutrition was a "constantly evolving science, there is always new data emerging".
She added: "What has become clear is that with supplements the benefits aren't always going to be obvious in all people, because it's going to depend on that individual's own make-up as to whether they will receive benefit from having an extra nutrient of some kind."
Dr Carter said his own advice would be for people to look at what kind of scientific evidence there was in support of a particular supplement before taking it and check whether there are any warnings.
Tips for taking supplements
Buy supplements from reputable suppliers - they should have gone through rigorous quality assurance
Check if they have been tested in clinical trials with a cohort of people that is similar to them (comparable age, sex)
Look for warnings - for example, people with heart conditions would want to check the supplement is not toxic for the heart
Be cautious about taking multiple supplements at the same time
Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) loyalists have taken control of most state media institutions after the swearing in of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister.
SLPP union leaders or members at state media institutions, including Lake House,
Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (SLRC), Independent Television Network (ITN) and the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC), were issuing directives while previously appointed staff members in senior positions kept away from work yesterday. SLPP union members moved in swiftly to take control of the institutions soon after President Maithripala Sirisena swore in Mr. Rajapaksa as the new Prime Minister on Friday evening.
A senior Lake House source said a group of SLPP loyalists within Lake House had barged into the layout section of the Daily News on Friday night and forcibly changed the layout of yesterday’s edition. The SLPP union members had told Lake House staff that they were acting under orders from the new Prime Minister’s office through Kandy District MP and former Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella.
Yesterday, staff at the Sunday Observer, too, had been pressured by the SLPP faction to repeat a story of Rajapaksa being sworn in, though it had been pointed out it was now “stale news.” They had also been warned not to report any stories regarding Ranil Wickremesinghe or UNP Ministers as Cabinet now stood dissolved. Senior journalists at the paper had reportedly protested over these demands from unions.
Meanwhile, at ITN, several journalists were also forced out by fellow staff members affiliated to the SLPP. Subash Jayawardena, ITN’s Deputy General Manager (DGM) – News and Current Affairs, told the Sunday Times he received warnings on Friday night that he and certain other employees were about to be attacked. “I was warned to leave, and I took two other staff members who were also at risk with me. As we were leaving in the office vehicle, we were stopped at the gate by Rajapaksa supporters who ordered us out of the vehicle, shouting that our time was done. However, some other ITN staff members intervened and they managed to help us leave the premises safely,” he explained. Mr Jayawardena said several other staff members were also forcibly evicted by the union.
At the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation, SLPP-affiliated staff and a group of outsiders accosted several UNP ministers and MPs, including Mangala Samaraweera, Ranjith Maddumabandara and Chathura Senaratne. Mr Maddumbandara claimed they were visiting the state-run channel following Friday evening’s political developments when they ran into the group. “They grew very aggressive and there was a heated exchange of words, but we did not intend to get involved in a conflict. So we left the premises,”Mr. Maddumabandara said.
Rupavahini Chairperson Inoka Sathyangani, ITN Chairperson Thilaka Jayasundara, its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Chandana Thilakarathna and several other senior officials had not been to their institutions since the crisis on Friday, sources said.
Mr Rambukwella, however, claimed the UNP MPs had “invaded” the Rupahavahini Corporation in a bid to plant stories in the news bulletins. This caused agitation among the employees, he alleged. “They claim we intimidated them, but I would classify what they did as intimidation,” he said. He also said he explained the situation to Lake House journalists who sought clarification from him over the new political developments.
Leader of the United National Party (UNP) and current Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe met with the ambassadors from the US, UK, EU, India, Japan, China and Australia today in Temple Trees to discuss the current constitutional crisis.
UNP supporters rallied outside Temple Trees today in opposition to the decision taken by President Maithripala Sirisena to sack Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister.
In a joint statement taken yesterday the EU alongside ambassadors from France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania and the UK High Commissioner said they were monitoring the situation.
“We urge all parties to fully act in accordance with Sri Lanka’s constitution, to refrain from violence, to follow due institutional process, to respect the independence of institutions, and freedom of media,” the joint statement said.
Leaders of both communities grossly misread India’s position and motives in the ethnic crisis, which eventually brought the civil war with disastrous economic and strategic consequences.
by Dr Ameer Ali-
( October 29, 2018, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) One of the notable features of the current dynamics of Sri Lankan politics is the growing recognition by all parties in the country of India’s growing sensitivity to Sri Lanka’s major domestic political issues and changes. Historically viewed, this is a post-civil war phenomenon, which arose out of local misperceptions and misreads of India’s position and intensions regarding the unresolved Sinhalese-Tamil ethnic issue.
Even though the country is so close to India geographically, “so as to lose its insular character”, as K. M. Panikkarrightly assessed in his India and the Indian Ocean (1945: p.20), and is culturally entwined, it never became India’s satellite state, in spite of being drawn into the wars of the south Indian kingdoms either in self-defence, or in alliance with one or other of the warring princes.
Although the Kandyan kingdom was ruled by the Nayakkar dynastyfrom South India for three quarters of a century between 1739 and 1815 that kingdom remained independent and never fell under the tutelage of Dravidian India.
Even colonial Britain ruled Ceylon as a separate crown colony and not as part of India. After independence in 1948 and until the rise of LTTE, India rarely intervened in Sri Lankan domestic political affairs except when called for military assistanceSri Lankan governments, as was the case in the abortive coup d’etatof 1962 and JVP led youth insurrection of 1971.
True, the strategic location of Trincomalee harbour and events surrounding its ownership and control has always been a concern in India’s naval strategy, because India, asstressed by Panikkar,is determined tokeep “The Indian Ocean … remain fully Indian” (op.cit., p. 84). However, Trincomalee was never an issue between India and Sri Lanka until China entered Sri Lankan waters after the civil war by gaining a 99-year leasehold over Hambantota harbour.
Likewise, even the issue of status of Indian immigrants in the island, a legacy of British colonialism, was settled amicably and with great statesmanship by the Sirimavo-Shastri Pact of 1964 and Sirimavo-Indira Pact of 1974. This mutual recognition of and non-interference in each other’s domestic politics has changed dramatically since the end of the civil war.
The ubiquity of India’s intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing(RAW) and the regularity of visits by Sri Lankan leaders to Delhi and vice versa for advice and consultation eloquentlyannounces the permanency of Indian interest in Sri Lankan politics.How did this happen? To answer this question one has to understand the contradictory perceptions or rather misperceptions that the Sinhalese and Tamil leadership carried about India’s position and intentions regardingthe ethnic issue.
Leaders of both communities grossly misread India’s position and motives in the ethnic crisis, which eventually brought the civil war with disastrous economic and strategic consequences. The Sinhalese intelligentsia, the Buddhist prelates and political leaders had a mortal fear in their mindset fed by partisan historians, archaeologists, political thinkers, novelists and dramatists that India would one day invade Sri Lanka in support of the Tamils.
This fear was ingrained in their psyche through distorted pictures about Tamil invasions from South India during the medieval era. That fear understandably became intense when Tamil leaders and especially their LTTE subset, over confidently and overwhelmingly,fulminated about Indian Tamil brethren’s readiness to assist in case of war breaking out between the two communities.
The willingness of Tamil Nadu rulers, in concert with Delhi leadership, to supply weapons and train Eelam warriors on Indian soil added further to Sinhalese fear and built Tamil hopes. Ultimately, when the Indian air force provocatively intruded Sri Lanka’s air-space and dropped relief supplies on the Jaffna Peninsula on 4 June 1987 following the failure to send a day before a flotilla of ships loaded with similar cargo the contradictory feelings of both communities reached their respective zenith. Yet, when the war actually broke out and moved towards its tragic crescendo the fear of the Sinhalese and hopes of the Tamils evaporated simultaneously, one with jubilation and the other with disappointment and agony.Both groups misperceived and misread India’s position and intentions.
From the point of view of India’s national security Sri Lankan ethnic issue was a non-issue to receive serious attention. Historically, the threat to India’s security always came from the north and not from the south. This was why Indira Gandhi showed keen interest in the then growing separatist troubles between East and West Pakistan, sent Indian forces to assist Mujibur Rahman’s MuktiBahini and actualised the cause of an independent Bangladesh.
India had to do it for strategic reasons to weaken its arch rival Pakistan against whom she fought three wars. India’s role and interference in this episode raised false hopes among the Tamils that it will do the same in their struggle for an independent Eelam.This was the first misread of India’s tactical and discriminatory interference in the politics of neighbouring countries.
The fact that Delhi tolerated Tamil Nadu’s red carpet reception to Sri Lankan separatist factions and even Delhi’s preparedness to provide limited supply of arms and training to Tamil fighters was not because of Delhi’s support to the Tamil struggle for a separate state but because to keep the Tamil Nadu state government on the side of the Central government in Delhi. The need for a central government’s stability and continuity in a federal democracy often produces situations that make compromises on unpalatable demands from state governments unavoidable. Such internal diplomatic manoeuvres between Delhi and Chennai werealso misperceived by Sri Lankan Tamil leaders as Tamil Nadu’s overriding influence over the central government. Also, little did those leaders ponder whether the Tamil Nadu politicians themselves supported the emergence of an independent Tamil Eelam. The late Cho Ramaswamy, a Tamil Brahmin journalist, lawyer and comedian,was quite critical of the hypocrisy of Tamil Nadu politicians such as Karunanidhi, Ramachandran and Jeyalalitha (all of them are dead)for manipulating the Sri Lankan Tamil issue simply to win their own political contests and no more.
Objectively speaking, an independent Tamil Eelam will be detrimental to the international status and reputation of Tamil Nadu. In a short note that I published in the London Tamil Times in 1986 I analysed this point which obviously disturbed a number of Eelamists and their fellow travellers.Let me summarise my argument.Even though Tamil Nadu is only a state government and not an independent country, it is, for all intents and purposes, the sole spokesperson in the global arena regarding Tamil language, Tamil culture and Tamil civilization. This is a prestigious situation. However, that position is bound to be jeopardised once anindependent Tamil Eelam is created and recognised internationally. That tiny country with a flag of its own would then have a representative in the UN and that representative would automatically become the sole voice of any Tamil issue raised at world stage. Will Tamil Nadu be prepared to surrender its hegemony to a Tamil Eelam, ruled by leaders, who, in the caste ladder of Indian Brahmanismare not equal even to its lowest rung? Also, from the point of view of Delhi, the tiny Tamil country may even re-energize separatist Dravidian ethnic feelings in Tamil Nadu, which was successfully controlled and subsumed in 1950s under territorial federalism.Finally, instead of one, two independent countries in one small island, but both sharing the same land borders along the Indian Ocean would complicate India’s any future negotiations for maritime security.Thus, neither Delhi nor Chennai was really committed to support Tamil Eelam struggle. The thirty minutes token hunger strike, in sympathy with Sri Lankan Tamils, by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Karunanidhi, at a time when tens of thousands of Tamils were trapped in a redoubt and facing slaughter at the hands of Sri Lankan soldiers exposed Tamil Nadu’s hypocrisy beyond any doubt.
Had these facts been understood by the leaders of the two communities a civil war would have been averted. While an ungrounded fear of India drove Sinhalese politicians to shop around for weapons from multiple source with borrowed money, an overconfident Tamil leadership relying on Tamil Nadu’s false promises rejected all solutions for a peaceful settlement. Even with all the advantage of superior weapons and larger size of soldiery it was the crucial neutrality of Delhi that actually won the war for the Sri Lankan government. To that,Sri Lankan governments irrespective of their hues are heavily indebt. It was India’s master stroke. India is finally in Sri Lanka without firing a shot.The country has paid a very heavy price for its misperceptions and misreads.
However, the sudden sacking of Prime Minister RW by President MS on Friday 26 October, after the PM returned from a recent visit to India, is seen by observers as an attempt by the President to keep India at bay. The newly appointed PM and former President MR, who is yet to prove his majority support in the parliament when it reconvenes on 16 November, is known to be closer to Beijing than Delhi. At the moment there are two PMs and one headman. India’s RAW will be closely watching these developments, and looking from a distance, they do not auger well for Sri Lanka’s political stability and economic future.
(The writer is from School of Business and Governance, Murdoch University, Western Australia.)
The Australian Advocacy for Good Governance in Sri Lanka (AAGGSL) strongly condemns the Sri Lankan President’s abrupt removal of the incumbent Prime Minister on the night of 26 October 2018. It is our considered view that the President’s irresponsible and unwarranted action is illegal, unconstitutional and a severe blight on Sri Lanka’s democracy.
The changes brought about by the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution, overwhelmingly passed in April 2015, removed the President’s power to dismiss the Prime Minister, ensuring that the Prime Minister is responsible to Parliament, not to the President. Thus, the Prime Minister’s term cannot be interfered with by the President and his ability to destabilise the government has been constitutionally scuttled.
Furthermore, the President cannot gauge whether or not an incumbent Prime Minister commands the confidence of Parliament unless it was put to test in the floor of the House via a no confidence motion. The fact that the serving Prime Minister and Cabinet was given no notice of the intended action by the President smacks of a political coup to remove him from power at any cost.
AAGGSL understands that this disgraceful U-turn by the President on ‘Good Governance’ and his blatant disregard to sound democratic norms for political expediency, is already descending the country into chaos and instability. Reports of persecution and mounting threats to media outlets, including the state-owned Lake House and national television Rupavahini, by the loyalists of the illegally sworn-in prime minister are posing considerable challenge to the rule of law, freedom of expression and peace in the country.
We call upon the President to immediately summon the Parliament and resolve this crisis brought about by his unconsidered act, swiftly, democratically and constitutionally.Any other attempts including prorogation of parliament will only undermine the will of the people. Political canniness to achieve the personal goals of autocratic and corrupt parliamentarians will only add to the woes of the country that is just emerging from decades of international isolation.
At this crucial juncture, the people of Sri Lanka are understandably angry and reserve the right to do everything within law to protest and demand the fulfilment of the promises made for which they cast their priceless votes on Thursday, 8 January 2015. They will not take lightly the shrewd and cunning assumption of power by the unabashedly unapologetic cronies.
Gamaralalage Maithripala Sirisena, it seems, is a specialist in betrayal. He first betrayed his former leader and former President, Mahinda Rajapaksa. He had a hopper feed with Mahinda the very morning of that act of deception and was, soon after, seen at Sirikotha announcing his “sacrifice… for the sake of the nation”. Over 62 million people didn’t mind that because the beneficial outcome could not have been achieved without that
Next, he betrayed his principal coalition partner and its leader – the UNP and Ranil Wickremesinghe. During the Local Government elections, Sirisena went round after doing a U-turn and attacking the UNP and Prime Minister. He waved a metaphorical sword against what he pretended was corruption. “I want a Government free of corruption,” Sirisena cried, “and “I will not hesitate to use my sword against anybody, including those in the UNP.”
After all the effort campaigning heavily throughout the island, Sirisena managed to get a measly 4% of the electoral vote – although, by his acts of vilification he reduced the UNP votes, too. Since that experience he is called “the 4% man”.
The third betrayal is what is now going on in dastardly and shameless manner with the help of his former enemy, Mahinda Rajapaksa. He has “sacked” the sitting Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, and “appointed” Mahinda Rajapaksa to replace the former.
Serious repercussions of the third betrayal
This betrayal has serious repercussions for the country and its people because it clearly constitutes the undermining of the Constitution. A constitution in any country is the basic and fundamental law of the land. Citizens treat that with sanctity. This is why one needs a special and rigorous procedure to make changes to a constitution unlike in the case of ordinary legislation.
A constitution embodies the fundamental democratic right of citizens. It is the ultimate bulwark of freedom. The fair rules of the broad political game is set out in a constitution. It must never be touched unless it needs be and even then an ironclad procedure has to be followed – often requiring a referendum.
One can imagine how serious it is when the highest in the land takes it upon himself to violate the Constitution. It is never done. However, Gamaralalage Sirisena has been brazen enough to do that. National confusion follows. International censure is passed. This is what is happening now. Not a single foreign country leader has conveyed the routine congratulations to Mahinda. I am informed the deposed Male leader has. Well, not even Swaziland. Normal civil order is seriously disrupted. Sri Lanka becomes a pariah nation in the face of foreign countries. This can have a negative impact on foreign aid.
Furthermore, lesser men take the law unto their hands. We have already seen how the Rupavahini Corporation was attacked allegedly by some Ministers of the former regime. Rupavahini went off the air. Lake House was taken over. Public fears of further contravention spreads. The stable environment is rendered unstable. Foreign investors and travellers get cold feet. The economy cracks and the burden of living of ordinary persons is threatened, as uncertainty expands.
Unconstitutional
With regard to the legality of what has occurred, I quote an authority: “The 19th Amendment to the Constitution took away the discretionary powers of the President to remove a residing Prime Minister. (For those who are justifying it saying the 19th Amendment gives the President the right to appoint a PM as he wants, my god, learn to read.) This is found in article 46 (2).
The Prime Minister can only be dismissed if:
1. Cabinet is dismissed (also the Cabinet cannot be dismissed by the President FYI)
2. She/he resigns
3. She/he stops being a Member of Parliament.
[Again, 46 (2)]
The President can appoint a PM under Section 42 (4), only if the above has happened.”
That hasn’t happened in this instance. Hence the President cannot appoint a Prime Minister at all.
The above means that President’s sacking of the standing Prime Minister and his appointing a new individual are both prohibited under the Constitution. President Sirisena has pathetically violated the Constitution which he swore to uphold at his swearing-in. Mahinda Rajapaksa, too, by collaborating, has violated the Constitution. There is a strong case to impeach both individuals in one blow.
In doing so, the President and Mahinda cannot plead ignorance because there was precedence a year ago when Sirisena tried to sack Ranil Wickremesinghe and install someone else. At that time, Mahinda wasn’t willing because he felt he was strong enough to recover power on his own merits at a campaign. Those days, Mahinda Rajapaksa was perceived as a lion who could walk with head held high in stately confidence.
Mahinda’s self-confidence shaken
By now, Mahinda’s self-confidence has shaken. Why? Because, with the setting up of the new Special Courts, the fate of his family members and his ruffian cronies are imminently in the balance. Mahinda’s private secretary, Senerath, will be taken up in a few days over charges of embezzling 500 million. Mahinda’s former powerful brother, Gotabaya, will be next taken up.
Others are in line, including Mahinda’s wife, Basil, Namal, Yoshitha, his several cronies like Prasanna and so on. Mahinda himself is saved because of the legal immunity that the Constitution gave the President. The charges are serious – embezzlement of public funds, money laundering, bribery, murder. The sceptres of Lasantha Wickrematunge, Ekneligoda, Raviraj and the many journalists who met with death at the hands of hit squads. A sordid story was Mahinda Rajapaksa’s 10-year regime.
President Sirisena had announced he wanted a Government that is not corrupt. He has, indeed, got it!
(The writer can be reached via sjturaus@optusnet.com.au.)
28/10/2018
In a major development, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya has requested President Maithripala Sirisena to protect privileges of UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe until the person with a Parliamentary majority establishes as the Prime Minister.
The Speaker, writing a letter to the President, says the request presented by the UNP is fair.
He emphasized that the President, as a leader who obtained a mandate to uphold good governance, should closely look into the matter.
He also says that Proroguing Parliament for 20 days may lead to instability. The recent incident reported in state media institutions, travel advisories issued by foreign country and concerns expressed by various parties highlight the gravity of this situation, Jayasuriya says in his letter.
He also adds that proroguing Parliament should happen with the consent of the Speaker, according to Parliamentary traditions.
President Sirisena and newly appointed PM Mahinda Rajapaksa greet each other after swearing in ceremony (pix by Chandana Perera)
By Amal Jayasinghe-October 28, 2018
President Maithripala Sirisena suspended parliament Saturday to forestall a challenge against his surprise ouster of the prime minister, deepening a sudden swell of political turmoil in the island nation.
Police cancelled all leave as tensions heightened in Colombo a day after the president’s dismissal of rival Ranil Wickremesinghe, who was replaced by controversial former strongman leader Mahinda Rajapakse.
Parliamentary officials said the president had suspended the 225-member parliament until November 16. Wickremesinghe had earlier demanded an emergency session to prove he still commanded a majority.
Wickremesinghe continued to occupy Temple Trees, the official residence of the prime minister, and insisted in a letter to Sirisena that he was still in office.
"Get this controversy out of the way," Wickremesinghe told reporters in a press conference at the residence. "Reconvene parliament immediately so that I can prove my majority."
Parliamentary sources said Speaker Karu Jayasuriya would now have to decide if he recognised Rajapakse or Wickremesinghe as the prime minister.
The crisis, which follows similar turmoil in the neighbouring Maldives, has stirred international concern.
The United States called on all sides to abide by Sri Lanka’s constitution and refrain from violence. European Union ambassadors in Colombo issued a similar message on Saturday.
Regional power India was also "closely watching" developments in Colombo, official sources in New Delhi told AFP.
- Standoff -
Overnight, Rajapakse loyalists stormed two state-owned television networks — which they regard as loyal to Wickremesinghe’s outgoing government — and forced them off the air. They resumed broadcasting Saturday and were supporting Rajapakse.
There were reports of sporadic attacks against supporters of Wickremesinghe’s United National Party in several parts of the country after Rajapakse was sworn in late Friday.
The streets of the capital remained mainly calm Saturday but security was tightened around Temple Trees, Rajapakse’s residence and the state television station.
Wickremesinghe, 69, who trained as a lawyer and regarded a champion of free market reforms, insisted that he can be removed only by parliament.
His party has the largest number of seats, but the president’s United People’s Freedom Alliance announced it was walking out of the governing coalition shortly before Wickremesinghe was sacked.
This is the second time that a president has ousted Wickremesinghe from office. In 2004, just two and a half years into a six-year term, the then president sacked him and called snap elections.
After winning the premiership a third time in August 2015, Wickremesinghe amended the constitution to remove the head of state’s power to sack prime ministers to prevent a repeat of his earlier ouster.
Sirisena proceeded on Friday despite the insistence of many political observers that he lacked the power to remove the premier.
Political commentator Victor Ivan said Sirisena’s action was a blatant violation of the constitution. "This is a capture of power through a conspiracy," Ivan said.
However, Rajapakse loyalist and former foreign minister G. L. Peiris said they believed there was nothing illegal about sacking Wickremesinghe and challenged him to prove his majority on November 16.
Wickremesinghe had survived an no-confidence vote backed by Sirisena earlier this year.
- No cabinet -
Since his rushed swearing in, Rajapakse has yet to announce any official moves such as naming a new cabinet although several of his supporters said they expect a new cabinet to be formed on Sunday.
Speaking to jubilant supporters outside his Colombo home late Friday, Rajapakse called on Wickremesinghe to step down.
Members of the rival party must "respect democracy, respect the country and respect the law", the former president said through a loudhailer from a balcony.
Rajapakse, 72, is a controversial figure at home and abroad but has pushed for a return to frontline politics since he lost a presidential election to Sirisena in 2015.
His decade in power saw Colombo crush a decades-long Tamil Tiger uprising.
Rights groups say tens of thousands of Tamil civilians were killed in the final stages of the campaign, but Rajapakse has refused to acknowledge any abuses in the civil war.
He also leaned heavily on China for political support and took loans to build infrastructure which the new government described as white elephants. His reliance on Beijing angered India, who Rajapakse blamed for his defeat in the last presidential polls.
After Sirisena became president, Sri Lanka has moved to reconcile with India, the United States and other Western powers.
It promised the UN it would investigate allegations of rights abuses during the civil war but has been criticised for a lack of progress in the years since. (AFP)
President Sirisena’s sacking of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa in his place has been described by some as a ‘constitutional coup’. The phrase ‘constitutional coup’ is a contradiction in terms, or ‘an oxymoron’, because it would imply that although President Sirisena’s actions amounted to a coup, his actions are sanctioned by the constitution. There is no constitutional basis for the President to have removed the Prime Minister.
At the press conference held on 27 October 2018, as reported in Adaderana (‘GL explains how PM was removed and why Parliament was prorogued’, October 27, 2018), Dr G.L. Peiris, the chairperson of the SLPP, attempted to justify the legality of President Sirisena’s actions, putting forward two points in support. They are:
1. The cabinet of ministers stood dissolved by the very fact of exceeding the numerical limit prescribed in Article 46(1).
2. The President as the appointing authority has also the power to dismiss him. In fact, the phrase used by Dr Peiris is ‘compulsory removal’.
What Dr Peiris sought to do was to provide an ex post facto rationale for the President’s action but the reasons he put forward for the removal cannot be reconciled with those given by the President. Nor are they reflected in the position taken by the President in his gazette notification.
The gazette notification announcing the President’s decision stated that “the President in the exercise of powers conferred upon him under the Constitution …, has removed Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe … with immediate effect.” (see The Gazette Extraordinary no. 2094/43 dated Friday 26 October 2018). There is no reference in this gazette to the specific provision or provisions of the constitution under which the President purported to act when removing the Prime Minister from office.
If, as Dr Peiris says, the cabinet of ministers ceased to hold office and the Prime Minister had gone out with the cabinet, then there was no need for the President to have “removed” the Prime Minister from office, and to have done so with immediate effect. The President has not stated that the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa became necessary because the office of the Prime Minister which was occupied by Ranil Wickremesinghe had fallen vacant.
President cannot remove the Prime Minister
The President has no power under the Constitution to remove the Prime Minister from office for the reasons which I adumbrated many months ago in opinions expressed, inter alia, in the Colombo Telegraph. (See ‘The President Cannot Remove the Prime Minister’, February 20, 2018 and ‘The President is Powerless to Remove the Prime Minister’, April 13, 2018. I do not wish to repeat those arguments here as they are easily accessible online.
Suffice it to say that, since the enactment of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the President no longer has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister. The Nineteenth Amendment reconfigured the balance of power between the President on the one hand and Parliament and the Prime Minister on the other, making the Prime Minister’s continuance in office dependent on the confidence that Parliament has in him rather than that of the President.
Section 14 (f) of the Interpretation Ordinance
The President’s power to remove the Prime Minister was expressly provided for in the 1978 constitution but it was taken away by the Nineteenth Amendment. That power cannot now be restored by relying on the Interpretation Ordinance. If it was intended that the President shall continue to enjoy this power, then it does not make any sense for this power to have been taken away by the Nineteenth Amendment. The President has in effect tried to grab with one hand what has been taken from the other.
Dr Peiris has stated that the President, as the authority having the power to appoint the Prime Minister, also has the power to rescind that appointment. Dr Peiris has sought to derive this power, which does not exist in the constitution, from section 14(f) of the Interpretation Ordinance. The powers of the President have to be determined from the provisions of the constitution and not discovered from the Interpretation Ordinance.
Apart from the fact that the Constitution does not admit to the application of section 14(f) to interpret the relevant provisions, to read the words of section 14 (f) into the Constitution would lead to absurd conclusions. This would become apparent if one looks at the wording of section 14(f). It is provided in that section that “for the purpose of conferring power to dismiss, suspend, or re-instate any officer, it shall be deemed to have been and to be sufficient to confer power to appoint him.” It would mean that the President may not only dismiss the Prime Minister, but also suspend him; but that cannot be right.
Prime Minister compulsorily removed from office
Dr Peiris’ principal contention though is that following the withdrawal of the UPFA from the National Government the cabinet “no longer existed. When that cabinet went out of office, together with it went the Prime Minister. So, you have to start on a clean state”. In other words, according to Dr Peiris, the withdrawal of the UPFA has had the automatic effect of bringing about the dissolution of the Cabinet of Ministers, and with it a vacancy in the Prime Minister’s office.
He has constructed this argument relying on Article 46 of the constitution. Art 46 (1) states that the Cabinet of Ministers shall have no more than thirty in number; and (b) Ministers who are not members of the Cabinet of Ministers and Deputy Ministers shall not, in the aggregate, exceed forty.
This numerical limit was inapplicable to the cabinet of ministers of the National Government which was formed in 2015. Once the UPFA informed the Speaker of Parliament that it withdrew from the National Government, the numerical limitation set out in the Nineteenth Amendment Article 46(1) came into play. As the cabinet had more than thirty ministers at the time of withdrawal, the cabinet went out of existence. Just like that.
Article 46(2) stated 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…” Therefore, the Prime Minister’s office became vacant when the cabinet of ministers ceased to function.
It is my submission that the automatic effect that Dr Peiris ascribed to the withdrawal of the UPFA from the unity government has no constitutional basis. Nowhere in the constitution is it stated that the discontinuation of the National Government shall result in the dissolution of the cabinet of ministers. Furthermore, there is nothing in the constitution to suggest that the effect of exceeding the maximum number in the cabinet would be its dissolution. The cabinet was still in existence and was functioning until two days ago, presumably with more than thirty members at the time.
