Upholding Democracy

SC in landmark judgement states dissolution ultra vires constitution

Continued from Saturday

Lakmal Sooriyagoda-Monday, December 24, 2018

In PARAMESWARY JAYATHEVAN vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL [1992 2 SLR 356 at p. 360] Kulathunga J observed, with Ramanathan J, Perera J and Wijetunga J agreeing, that acts done by public officers “under colour of office in the exercise or the purported exercise of government functions” are ordinarily regarded as constituting “executive or administrative action”. In the present case, the issue by His Excellency, the President of the Proclamation was undoubtedly done “under colour of office” of the President.

The 2nd added Respondent submitted that the Proclamation is not subject to judicial review and, further, “the basis on which His Excellency, the President formed an opinion to dissolve Parliament is a political decision which your Lordship’s court has no jurisdiction to inquire into”.

However, this submission too is countered by the aforesaid rule that while His Excellency‘s decision to issue proclamation may have been a political decision, the power to dissolve Parliament is specified in the Constitution, and, therefore, this Court has both the power and the duty to examine whether the issue of proclamation was in accordance with the Constitution.

The provisions of the Constitution relating to dissolution

All counsel have agreed that, in essence, there are three provisions of the Constitution which have to be considered when deciding the applications before us. They are Article 33 (2), Article 62 (2) and Article 70. The Petitioners contend that Article 48 (1) and Article 48 (2) also support their cases. The Hon. Attorney General and the added Respondents disagree with that contention.

The Petitioners’ position is that while Article 33 (2) (c) only recognises and vests in the President the power to dissolve Parliament, the only manner in which the President may exercise that power is specified and limited by the provisions of Article 70.

The Petitioners go on to submit that the overarching provision specifying the manner and method of the exercise of the President's power to dissolve Parliament and controlling that power is Article 70 and, in particular, Article 70 (1) which specifies that the only way the President may dissolve Parliament is by the issue of a Proclamation and the Proviso to Article 70 (1) which stipulates that no such Proclamation can be issued until the expiration of four and a half years from the date of the first meeting of that Parliament unless not less than two thirds of the Members of Parliament (including those not voting) have by a resolution requested the President to dissolve Parliament, and the President is of the view that such request should be acceded to.

The Petitioners submit that there is no difference in the meaning of Article 62 (2) in the English language and the same Article in the Sinhala language. They submit that Article 62 (2) in the English language is couched in one long sentence while Article 62 (2) in the Sinhala language says the exact same thing as Article 62 (2) in the English language but in three separate sentences.

The Petitioners submit that the fact that Parliament can only be dissolved under the provisions of Article 70 is reflected and recognised in Article 48(1) and Article 48 (2) since these Articles which refer to the dissolution of Parliament by the President “in the exercise of his powers under Article 70" and to no other provision in the Constitution under which the President could have dissolved Parliament.

The submissions of the Hon. Attorney General, the Added Respondents and the Intervenient Petitioners

The Hon. Attorney General and the added Respondents submit that Articles 33 (2) (c), Article 62 and Article 70 should be read and understood in the following way:

(a) Article 33 (2) (c) has been specifically included by the 19th Amendment as a new power vested in the President to summon prorogue and dissolve Parliament at his discretion and which can be exercised independent of the restraints set out in Article 70(1). They highlight that Article 33 (2) of the 1978 Constitution prior to the 19th Amendment had no provision referring to the President‘s power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament.

They submit that Article 33 (2) (c) formulates and recognises a sui generis and overarching “executive-driven” dissolution of Parliament by the President which is independent of the power of dissolution referred to in Article 70 (1) and is not subject to the limits and restraints specified by Article 70 (1).

Decision

The decision in this case rests on the correct manner in which Article 33 (2) (c), Article 62 and Article 70 of the Constitution are to be read, understood and applied. The Petitioners complain that the Proclamation marked - P1 has been issued ultra vires and in contravention of the powers and procedures set out in these Articles and that, therefore, their fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 12 (1) of the Constitution have been violated.

When interpreting provisions in a Constitution, a Court must approach its task keeping in mind that the document before the Court is the foundation, charter of governance and guiding light of the nation. The Court is duty bound to carry out that task in a manner which correctly understands and interprets the provisions of the Constitution so as to uphold the Rule of Law and constitutional certainty. The Court must remain alive to the need to understand and apply the Constitution in accordance with the intention of its makers and also take into account social, economic and cultural developments which have taken place since the framing of the Constitution.

It is to be kept in mind that the task of interpreting a statute must be done within the framework and wording of the statute and in keeping with the meaning and intent of the provisions in the statute. A Court is not entitled to twist or stretch or obfuscate the plain and clear meaning and effect of the words in a statute to arrive at a conclusion which attracts the Court.

A guiding principle when a Court interprets the Constitution is that the Court must adopt an approach which enforces the Rule of Law, which is one of the fundamental principles upon which our Constitution is built.

A related principle is that our Law does not recognise that any public authority, whether they be the President or an officer of the State or an organ of the State, has unfettered or absolute discretion or power.

In these circumstances, the inescapable inference is that the detailed provisions set out in Article 70 with regard to the manner and method of the exercise of the President's power of summoning, proroguing and dissolving Parliament and the restrictions and limits placed on that power must be read together with and are inextricably linked to the power referred to in Article 33 (2) (c) of the Constitution.

The resulting conclusion must be that the President's power of summoning, proroguing and dissolving Parliament referred to in Article 33 (2) (c) of the Constitution can only be exercised under and in terms of the scheme set out in Article 70 and is circumscribed and limited by the provisions of Article 70 and can be exercised only within and in conformity with the provisions of Article 70.

This conclusion is fortified by the wording of Article 48 (1) and (2) which refer to the President dissolving Parliament acting “in the exercise of his powers under Article 70” and contemplate no possibility of the President having dissolved Parliament without reference to Article 70.

Accepting the Respondent‘s contention that the power of issuing a Proclamation summoning, proroguing or dissolving Parliament under Article 33 (2) (c) and ignoring the provisions of Article 70, will render the entirety of Article 70 redundant and superfluous and thereby offend the rule that statutory interpretation must ensure that no provision of the Constitution is ill-treated in that manner.

President is subject to the Constitution and the law

It must also be stressed that, as set out earlier when identifying the relevant principles of the law and statutory interpretation, this Court has, time and again, stressed that our law does not permit vesting unfettered discretion upon any public authority whether it be the President or any officer of the State.

The suggestion that Article 33 (2) (c) vests in the President an unfettered discretion to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament at his sole wish and without reference to the clear and specific provisions of Article 70 is anathema to that fundamental rule and therefore must be rejected. As this Court has emphasized on several occasions, the President is subject to the Constitution and the law,and must act within the terms of the Constitution and the law. As this Court has also stated on several occasions, the guiding principle must be the furtherance and maintenance of the Rule of Law.

The submission made on behalf of the Hon. Attorney General and the added Respondents runs counter to that principle and must be rejected.

It is also important to note that Article 70 (1) in the original 1978 Constitution prior to the 19th Amendment stated “The President may, from time to time, by Proclamation summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament.” After the 19th Amendment, Article 70 (1) reads “The President may, by Proclamation summon prorogue.” The words “from time to time” which appeared in the original 1978 Constitution have been removed from Article 70 (1). It is seen that Article 70 (1) only uses the word “may” and refers to the President’s ability to issue a Proclamation which summons, prorogues or dissolves Parliament. Article 70 (1) does not expressly state that the President has the power to do so. It is apparent that the 19th Amendment to the Constitution has regularised this omission by expressly stating in Article 33 (2) (c) that the President has this power. It is clear that Article 33 (2) (c) is only a recognition of President’s power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament under and in terms of Article 70.

The conclusion must be that the “sooner” dissolution of Parliament referred to in Article 62 (2) is nothing but a recognition of the possibility that the President could have dissolved Parliament under the provisions of Article 70 (1) prior to expiry of the term of five years. Thus, the added Respondents’ contention that Article 62 (2) vests an independent and additional method of dissolving Parliament free from the restricitons of Article 70 (1), must be rejected.

We fail to see a real difference in the meaning of the phrase in English and the phrase in Sinhala. Article 70 (5) (b) in both languages only stipulates what should be done by the President after Parliament is dissolved by operation of Article 62 (2) at the end of five years – i.e: stipulate that the President must issue a Proclamation fixing the date of elections and summoning Parliament. Rather than vesting a ‘power’ in the President to dissolve Parliament, the said provision imposes ‘an obligation' on the President to forthwith fix dates for elections and for the newly elected Parliament to meet when a Parliament stands dissolved upon the completion of its term. We see nothing in these words in Sinhala which suggest a different meaning from the words in English in Article 70 (5) (b).

The added Respondents’ attempts to make out non-existent differences in the meaning of the words in Articles 62 (2) and 70 (5) in Sinhala and English have no substance and are a strained effort to twist or stretch the meaning of words which are readily understood to be the same when the plain and ordinary meaning of these words in both languages are accorded to them.

Thus, the conclusion must be that Article 62 (2) does not vest any separate or independent power in the President to dissolve Parliament outside the mechanism specified in Article 70 (1).

Thus, this Article stipulates in no uncertain terms that the President shall not dissolve Parliament during the first four and a half years from the date of its first meeting unless the President has been requested to do so by a resolution passed by not less than two thirds of the members of Parliament.
Thus, the second paragraph of Article 70 (1) makes it crystal clear that the power of the President to dissolve Parliament by Proclamation is subject to and limited by the aforesaid two conditions.

Therefore, since as concluded earlier, Article 33 (2) (c) must be read with and is inextricably linked to Article 70, the power of the President to dissolve Parliament which is referred to in Article 33 (2) (c) is subject to and limited by the aforesaid two conditions stipulated in second paragraph of Article 70 (1).

By operation of the second paragraph of Article 70 (1), the President cannot dissolve Parliament during the first four and a half years of its term unless he has been requested to do so by a resolution passed by not less than two thirds of the Members of Parliament [including those not present]. Even upon receipt of such a resolution, the President retains the discretion to decide whether or not he should act upon such a request.

After the expiry of four and a half years of Parliament‘s term, the President is entitled, at his own discretion, to dissolve Parliament by issue of a Proclamation.

Upon the expiry of five years from the date of its first meeting, Parliament will dissolve ‘automatically’ and without any intervention of the President by operation of Article 62 (2).
Upon such dissolution at the end of the five year term, the President must act under Article 70 (5) (b) and forthwith issue a Proclamation fixing a date for the General Election and summoning the new Parliament to meet within three months of that Proclamation.

To my mind, the effect of this interpretation also accords with the duty cast on this Court to read and give effect to the provisions in the Constitution so as to uphold democracy, the Rule of Law and the separation of powers and ensure that no unqualified and unfettered powers are vested in any public authority.

Therefore, on an application of the reasoning and conclusions set out above, I am compelled to hold that the Proclamation marked -P1has been issued in contravention of the provisions of Article 70 (1) of the Constitution and is, therefore, null and void.

General Election will be valid only if it is lawfully held

It has been said by some of the added Respondents that refusing the Petitioners‘ applications will enable a General Election to be held in pursuance of the Proclamation marked -P1 and, therefore, justified because it will give effect to the franchise of the people. That submission is not correct. Giving effect to the franchise of the people is not achieved by the Court permitting a General Election held consequent to a dissolution of Parliament which has been effected contrary to the provision of the Constitution. Such a General Election will be unlawfully held and its result will be open to question.

A General Election will be valid only if it is lawfully held. Thus, a General Election held consequent to a dissolution of Parliament which has been done contrary to the provisions of the Constitution will not be a true exercise of the franchise of the people.

The Proclamation has been issued outside legal limits and has resulted in a violation of Petitioner‘s rights both in his capacity as a Parliamentarian legitimately elected to represent the People and in the capacity of a citizen who is entitled to be protected from any arbitrary exercise of power.

For the reasons set out above, I hold that the Petitioners’ rights guaranteed under Article 12 (1) of the Constitution have been violated by the issue of the Proclamation filed with the petition in SC FR 351/2018 and make order quashing the said Proclamation and declaring the said Proclamation null, void ab initio and without force or effect in law.

This judgement and the aforesaid orders will apply to applications in nos. SC FR 351/2018. SC FR No. 352/2018, SC FR No. 353/2018, SC FR No. 354/2018, SC FR No. 355/2018, SC FR No. 356/2018, SC FR No. 358/2018, SC FR No. 359/2018, SC FR No. 360/2018, and SC FR No. 361/2018 in which the same issues as those in this application are before this Court.

The Crisis and After

GROUNDVIEWS-12/23/2018

Editors Note: The following is the text of a statement by The Friday Forum, an informal group of concerned citizens in Sri Lanka pledged to uphold norms of democracy, good governance, the rule of law, human rights, media freedom and tolerance in our pluralist society.

The crisis that prevailed in the country over the last two months has been overcome, consequent to the decision of the Supreme Court that was handed down on 13th December.

While the situation was instigated, carried forward and exacerbated by various political interests, Friday Forum notes the irony in the claim of all these individuals and entities that they were acting in the best interests of the country and in order to uphold the sovereignty of the people.  The responses from the public and civil society made it abundantly clear that people had ceased to have any confidence in the political establishment, of whatever colour, and continuously called all parties to account during this period, demanding a return to democratic governance and the rule of law. The government should not be under any illusion that its popularity has increased. In the last few weeks, people fought to uphold democracy, not any political party.

Largely due to an independent judiciary, and the vehement responses from the public and civil society to political manoeuvring, the status quo ante has been restored and the legitimate Prime Minister re-appointed. However, Friday Forum reiterates that we are not out of the woods, politically or economically. The government holding office pre-26th October has been given one more chance to make good on the promises that brought it to office in 2015, and to rectify errors that contributed to the crisis in governance. It has a short period of time in which to do so.

We wish to record our protest that persons who were earlier compelled to resign from the Cabinet due to public loss of confidence over their alleged implication in financial frauds and issues of conflict of interest, have now been re-appointed and given Ministerial posts.  This undermines the democratic values that civil society constantly fought for, and especially in the past few weeks. We ask that these persons not be permitted to hold public office until these issues are sorted out. The availability of other competent MPs who can serve as ministers makes such appointments all the more unacceptable.

Friday Forum calls upon the government to ensure that:

• Expedite investigations into and take necessary legal action regarding atrocities including the murders of Lasantha Wickrematunge, Wasim Thajudeen and Prageeth Ekneligoda.
• Take immediate and speedy action against all those accused of corruption and financial crimes including all those implicated in the government Bond Scam. The government must recover the looted assets.
• Investigate the thuggery and bribery that Parliamentarians engaged in during the past few weeks and take legal action against those identified as having committed offences.
• Take immediate measures to address the dire state of the economy which will soon plunge the country into desperate crisis. This requires immediate austerity measures which will need to be borne by everyone.  Those in positions of power and privilege must abandon their profligate lifestyles at state expense, including international travel for themselves, their family and friends, huge costs for security, unjustifiable remunerations for privileged posts, and the use of state resources for travel and other purposes.  Those in privileged positions cannot overlook the poverty that prevails among a high proportion of our people, whose situation will become more critical in the coming months.

We also ask that the role of the President in the crisis of the past few weeks be carefully and dispassionately evaluated. In any event it has been demonstrated that the abolition of the Executive Presidency has become again a matter of extreme urgency.

We demand a transformational change in our political culture. Promises for justice and reconciliation must not be forgotten and must be carried forward expeditiously. The constitutional reform process must continue in an open and transparent manner with the full and timely participation of civil society. It should not take place behind closed doors.

Mr. Faiz-ur Rahman and Mr Prashan de Visser                                                 

For and on behalf of:

Mr. Priyantha Gamage, Dr. Geedreck Usvatte-aratchi, Mr. Chandra Jayaratne, Dr. A.C.Visvalingam, Bishop Duleep de Chickera, Prof. Arjuna Aluwihare, Dr. Devanesan Nesiah, Prof. Camena Guneratne, Prof. Ranjini Obeyesekere, Prof. Gananath Obeyesekere, Mr. Daneshan Casie Chetty, Ms. Manouri Muttetuwegama, Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda, Ms. Shanthi Dias, Prof. Savitri Goonesekere, Mr. Tissa Jayatilaka and Rev. Dr. Jayasiri Peiris.

Sri Lanka: Ranil’s Final Chance

by Rajan Philips- Dec 23, 2018

Dec 23, 2018

The sweet feelings that arose after the Supreme Court’s two rulings last week turned sour this week with the spectacle of cabinet making. The President kept grabbing headlines with his diatribe after the swearing in, and his own alleged swearing at some point during the event. No one is going to be upset anymore with what the President does or doesn’t do. The real disappointment is Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. There was universal expectation that Prime Minister Wickremesinghe will show something inspiring and different this time in comparison to his previous efforts at cabinet making. No one was expecting to see all new faces in the cabinet given that it is still the same parliament with the same old faces. But quite a few people were expecting that they will not see some of the old faces return to the new cabinet.

Many UNPers and others who protested against the sacking of Wickremesinghe and the dissolution of parliament did not want to see Ravi Karunanayake back in cabinet in any portfolio. Malik Samarawickrema made a gallant show of volunteering to stay out of cabinet and even received complimentary hugs for his gesture, if not sacrifice. As it turns out, both men are in the cabinet as are almost all the old faces. The people rallied, parliament voted and the judiciary intervened to stop the illegitimate return of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister. But there is no power apparently in Sri Lanka that could stop the highhanded return of Ravi Karunanayke (RK) as cabinet minister. Cabinet appointments are left to two individuals, the highest in the land: the President and the Prime Minister, but neither man could stare down RK and show him the door. Chandrika Kumaratunga might have done it, but that is beside the point.

That Mr. Karunanayake was not given the finance portfolio is supposed to be the concession to honesty and good governance. It ought to be, on the contrary, everyone’s consternation that he was even allowed the temerity to make a claim for finance. Mangala Samarweera had to threaten that he will otherwise sit with the opposition in parliament to stop Karunanayake from getting his coveted finance portfolio. Even the lesser reward as Minister for Power and Energy and Business Development is expected to include the state banks as a signing bonus. We are supposed to appreciate the thinking behind bringing the banking and energy sectors together in Karunanayake’s new portfolio – to facilitate lines of credit to what are essentially Sri Lanka’s debt trap corporations. We can only pray that the state banks will all not vanish in a penthouse smoke.

Cabinet size and content

Most of us were not born when Sri Lanka began its odyssey with parliamentary democracy and cabinet form of government in 1947 – with a cabinet that had only 18 ministers. Some of us read later from Jennings that DS Senanayake actually wanted the cabinet size to be reduced and wanted it written in the (Soulbury) constitution. He was advised against it by colonial authorities that it would be impractical to reduce the size of cabinet given the multiple responsibilities of a modern government. The size of cabinet increased gradually but not unreasonably over the next thirty years from 1947 to 1977. Even today, neighbouring India and Pakistan have only 27 and 21 ministers, respectively, at the national level, even though they are much larger countries and more complex polities. The not so distant comparator Malaysia manages with 28 ministers, and the Prime Minister’s ideal state Singapore has only 19 Ministers.

The explosion of cabinet size in Sri Lanka is a direct result of the 1978 Constitution and JR Jayewardene’s experientially disastrous attempt to marry his idiosyncratic presidential system and the island’s pre-existing parliamentary system. In his new constitution, President Jayewardene gave himself and his successors plenty of powers to buy votes in parliament by rewarding MPs with an assortment of cabinet and non-cabinet ministerial positions and perks. The purpose is to maintain a parliamentary majority for the President by bribing MPs across party lines with half or full cabinet positions. Every President has used these powers successfully with the exception of Maithripala Sirisena. He too tried but without success, and then wailed publicly that the asking price has become too much.

The number of ministers swelled to 70 under Mahinda Rajapaksa, and with the addition of deputy and state ministers almost half the parliament became an assembly of half and full ministers. The 19th Amendment limited the cabinet size to 30, but a way around it was soon found through the contraption of a national government. After the end of that fiction in October the 30-minister limit is back, but god knows for how long. While there is a constitutional limit on the size of the cabinet, there is no constitutional provision or guidance regarding not only the qualifications but also the disqualifications to be a minister.

Last chance or lost opportunity

Ravi Karunanayake disqualified himself to be a minister when he became the central political figure in the Central Bank bond scandal. He was forced to leave cabinet, and what has requalified him since to be allowed back in cabinet? It is widely surmised that Mr. Karunanayke has a huge IOU to cash with the UNP for organizing financial support (from whatever shady sources) for the party over several years, and that he has built up a strong electoral base in Colombo North apparently due to cardinal blessings by the Catholic Church. Such blessings, if true, seem to extend further north to Negombo, where the ageless and the spiritually peerless John Amaratunga constantly gets to keep his position in cabinet. One would have thought that such considerations will not be given the same weight as in the past, in the aftermath of the democratic surge over the last seven weeks and more.

Further, if Ravi Karunanayake and others like him are loyal supporters of Ranil Wickremesinghe, why wouldn’t they make it easy for their leader by staying out of cabinet contention when they know that by their presence in the cabinet they become a national liability to the party and its leader? They may have their established vote base, but in the heightened public mood of today they run the risk of turning away larger numbers of neutral voters who may at best decide not to vote at all, or at worst hold their nose and vote for the Rajapaksas. The bigger question is why doesn’t Ranil Wickremesinghe assert himself in making cabinet selections and make the best possible selection for the government and the country? And why does he have to plead with his party members to voluntarily forego cabinet positions and then create positions even for those who volunteered to give up their cabinet positions?

From DS Senanayake to Mahinda Rajapaksa, no previous Prime Minister or President has been held hostage by anyone while making cabinet selections the way Ranil Wickremesinghe appears to be in dealing with Ravi Karunanayake’s cabinet claims. President Jayewardene kept Cyril Mathew in his cabinet disregarding universal appeals to expel him, but more as a hired gun than due to any insistence by Mr. Mathew. When Cyril Mathew was finally let go from the cabinet, “there was not a bloody hum on the road”, remarked Dr. Colvin R de Silva. Sir John Kotelawela and Mrs Bandaranaike took on formidable personas like GG Ponnambalam and NM Perera and fired them from their cabinets, even though the dismissals on both occasions turned out to be huge political miscalculations. In 2003, Chandrika Kumaratunga dismissed three of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s ministers without a hum, and the following year dismissed Mr. Wickremesinghe himself as Prime Minister. In the light of all this, it is reasonable to ask what hold does Ravi Karunanayake have on Ranil Wickremesinghe when it comes to cabinet making? And why did not President Sirisena refuse to swear in Ravi Karunanayake the same way he refused to admit Sarath Fonseka to the cabinet?

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe is a “lucky bugger”, as Kumar David professorially ranked him (last Sunday),to get his last chance to prove himself a successful Prime Minister and the last opportunity to win a national election as his party’s leader. The question is whether Mr. Wickremesinghe will turn his last chance into a positive opportunity for the first time in his political career, or if he will let it turn into another lost opportunity as he has always done in his entire political career. The making of the cabinet was his first chance to show that his reinstated government is different from and better than its earlier version that was dismissed on October 26. Ravi Karunanayake’s return as a cabinet minister has shown the very negation of it. The betrayal will be complete, again, if the cabinet size is increased to accommodate more than thirty ministers through another constitutional chicanery.

Crisis Still Smouldering: UNP Oblivious To Existential Threat Posed By Sirisena To Political Stability

By Rasika Jayakody – DECEMBER 23, 2018

Rasika Jayakody

 Lanka’s political crisis, which came to an apparent close with the reappointment of Ranil Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister on December 16, is still smouldering.

Sirisena has also removed the name of Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, a UNP front-liner, from the list of Cabinet appointments nominated by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. The UNP attributes the omission to Sirisena’s deeply personal hatred towards the former Army Chief.

It was reported that President Maithripala Sirisena directed the post-October Chairman of the state-run Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (SLRC) Sarath Kongahage to stay on despite the appointment of a new Chairperson by Finance and Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera.

Moreover, Sirisena has continued to meddle with high-profile judicial appointments: new battle lines have been opened with the Constitutional Council over the appointment of judges recommended by the Council.

Sirisena has refrained from appointing Justice Gamini Amarasekara and S. Thurairajah as Supreme Court judges, despite their names being recommended by the Council that was appointed under the provisions of the 19thAmendment to the Constitution.

Instead, Sirisena has nominated two others— K. K. Wickremesinghe and Deepali Wijesundara – and is seeking the Council’s approval on their appointment. The 10-member Council overlooking high-profile appointments has however stuck to its guns, swiftly shooting down the President’s attempt.

It is abundantly clear that Sirisena has not learnt anything from the 51-day coup attempt that was unsuccessful only because of all the pro-democratic political forces in the country that united to defeat it. He remains unrepentant and continues to subvert the Constitution, especially the 19thAmendment, which strengthened democratic institutions.

President Sirisena’s behaviour should worry all of the forces that collectively defeated the ‘Constitutional Coup’ through a gruelling,  prolonged battle. His intention to derail the UNF-led government increases the possibility of recurrent tensions that may result in another political turmoil.

President Sirisena, therefore, remains an existential threat to political stability in Sri Lanka. In spite of the appointment of a new government, Sri Lanka’s democracy remains shaky and vulnerable. When Sri Lankans go to sleep at night, they do so not know if they will wake up to a new government.

The country’s way out of the current instability hinges on the UNP’s future course of action on Sirisena. At this point, it seems as if the UNP does not want to rock the boat and is working towards restoring normalcy. The real problems will come to the fore after the passage of next year’s budget.

It is naïve to believe that the President and the UNP can co-exist in a government until the next Presidential election, fixed for January 2020. If the UNP intends to run the government for the next 13 months, it has no option but to neutralise the ‘Sirisena factor’ through democratic means.

Read More

Jayampathy: Cabinet can have 32 members including Prez, PM

By Shamindra Ferdinando-December 23, 2018, 11:37 pm 

Constitutional expert and National List MP Dr. Jayampathy Wickremaratne, PC, yesterday said that the 19th Amendment to the Constitution provided for appointing two more Cabinet ministers.

Parliament enacted 19th Amendment in late April 2015.

Dr. Wickremaratne asserted that though the 19th Amendment (46. [1]) restricted the number of cabinet ministers to 30 and non-cabinet positions to 40, in terms of the said law, both the President and the Prime could be accommodated outside the prescribed 30.

Dr. Wickremeratne said so when The Island asked him whether only 29 lawmakers, including Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe had been appointed to the Cabinet on Dec 20 because President Sirisena, too, was considered one of the stipulated 30 ministers. Dr. Wickremaratne said that as only members of the parliament could be appointed as ministers, President Sirisena certainly couldn’t be considered as being one of the 30. Dr. Wickremaratne pointed out as Cabinet appointments were made by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, the latter, too, could be safely considered as special category though he was a member of parliament.

Responding to another query, the former presidential advisor on constitutional affairs said that the government could go ahead with two more cabinet appointments if consensus could be reached with President Sirisena.

Asked whether they had to consult the Supreme Court in this regard, Dr. Wickremaratne said that there was absolutely no requirement to do. However, the President could seek a Supreme Court opinion, Dr. Wickremaratne said, adding that the public had the right to challenge the government in the Supreme Court.

Dr. Wickremaratne emphasised that Maithripala Sirisena held cabinet portfolios in his capacity as the President and, therefore, he couldn’t be considered a member of the 30 members of the Cabinet.

Responding to another query, Dr. Wickremaratne recalled the stand taken up by President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga when her People’s Alliance (PA) reached an agreement with the JVP for a power-sharing agreement under which the cabinet was restricted to 20. Kumaratunga insisted that the President and the Prime Minister should be accommodated in the Cabinet in addition to 20 appointed from members of the parliament. Dr. Wickremaratne said that at the time there hadn’t been any constitutional restriction on the number of cabinet ministers.

Meanwhile, The Island sought an explanation from non-cabinet minister and attorney-at-law Ajith P. Perera whether the creation of a special category as non-cabinet ministers was meant to bypass the relevant section of the 19th Amendment that restricted the number of Deputy Ministers and State Ministers to 40.

Kalutara District MP and Digital Infrastructure and Information Technology Minister Perera said that the prescribed 40 included all three categorized Non-Cabinet ministers, State Ministers and Deputy Ministers.

The UNPer insisted that there was absolutely no ambiguity in respect of the number of lawmakers permitted to hold positions outside the cabinet.

The President last Friday (Dec 21) appointed three non-cabinet ministers, 17 State ministers and seven Deputy Ministers leaving room for 13 more vacant positions.

Dr. Wickremaratne asserted that the government could proceed with plan to have cabinet consisting 32 (30 + President+PM) without being concerned about possible challenge in the Supreme Court. Of those who switched allegiance to the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe combine following UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe sacking as the Prime Minister on Oct 26, 2018 and then returned to the UNP, only Suresh Vadiwel received appointment as a State Minister. Badulla District MP was sworn in as the State Minister for plantations.

Government sources told The Island that the UNP was keen to finalize remaining non-cabinet appointments as soon as possible. Sources said that the in the absence of a simple majority, the UNP would continue to depend on the four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA) for support in parliament.

PM violated Constitution by nominating 35 for Cabinet: JVP 

2018-12-22

JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake said yesterday that Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was looking for loopholes in the Constitution to increase the number of ministers in the Cabinet and had violated the Constitution by sending a list of 35 names to the President to be appointed as ministers.

He asked the government on what provisions of the Constitution, a list of 35 names were sent to the President.

"The 19th Amendment to the Constitution clearly says that the Cabinet should be restricted to 30 when it was not a national government," he said and added that both President and the Prime Minister had violated the constitution.

He said the government was trying to claim that it was a national government by the use of one MP of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and added even if it assumed of such a scenario, even then they could increase the Cabinet only by one.

"This is not a national government. Let alone the Constitution and the law, it is obviously against the political decency to increase the Cabinet," he said.

Mr. Dissanayake said it is sad that the Prime Minister who claimed to protect the Constitution was violating it the next day after a fifty-day fight to protect the Constitution.

Leader of the House Lakshman Kiriella said the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had not violated the Constitution and that he was only interpreting it. (Ajith Siriwardana and Yohan Perera)

Mahinda Rajapaksa in another political conundrum

23 December, 2018


Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa found himself in another political conundrum this week when his new appointment as the Opposition Leader was challenged in Parliament and his parliamentary membership too appeared to be at risk.

While the country grappled with a prolonged political deadlock since October 26 following Rajapaksa’s appointment as the Prime Minister he eventually stepped down from the post on December 14 after a seven-week long standoff with the United National Party (UNP) leader Ranil Wickremesinghe whom he replaced.

Defeated through two no-confidence motion votes Rajapaksa next set his sights on the position of Opposition Leader as the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) became the largest group in the opposition. As a result on Tuesday, Rajapaksa was named as the Opposition Leader by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya while MP Mahinda Amaraweera of the UPFA was named the Cheif Opposition Whip.

However smooth sailing was once again not to be, as several parliamentarians opposed the appointments. The bone of contention was that Rajapaksa along with almost 30 Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) members had obtained the membership of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) which consists of Rajapaksa loyalists and former members of the SLFP.

The SLFP members joined the SLPP at the event at Rajapaksa’s official residence at Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo on November 10.

According to his opponents, Rajapaksa and several other MP’s by obtaining membership of the SLPP had ceased to become Members of Parliament under Article 99 (13) (a) of the Constitution. Article 99 (13) (a) states the seat of an MP will become vacant if the member resigns or is expelled or otherwise ceases to be a member of a recognised political party on whose nomination his name appeared at the time of him becoming a member of parliament.

With the SLPP never facing a general election, the argument was that by taking membership of such a party, Rajapaksa and the group now had no claim to their parliamentary seats.
Speaking to the Sunday Observer last week Rajapaksa refuted these allegations and categorically denied that he is a member of the SLPP as being alleged.

“One applying for party membership does not necessarily mean it has been accepted,” he said adding that the application must be accepted for a person to become a member of the party.

In spite of his claims, on November 10, the media widely reported that Rajapaksa had obtained membership of the SLPP along with 32 other MP’s including several SLFP stalwarts. According to reports, MPs Mahinda Yapa Abeywardene, C.B. Ratnayake, Janaka Bandara Thennakoon, Johnston Fernando, Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Priyankara Jayaratne, Rohitha Abeygunawardena, Prasanna Ranatunga, Dulip Wijesekara, Janaka Wakkumbura, Namal Rajapaksa, Shehan Semasinghe, Thenuka Widanagamage, Arundika Fernando, Kanchana Wijesekara, Nimal Lanza, Indika Anuruddha, Prasanna Ranaweera, D.V. Chanaka, Anura Priyadarashana Yapa, T.B. Ekanayake, Chandima Weerakkody, Susantha Punchinilame, Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena, Sumeda G. Jayasena, Sudarshani Fernandopulle, Tharanath Basnayake, Sanath Nishantha, Kanaka Herath, Gamini Lokuge, W.D.J. Seneviratne, Susil Premajayantha, Wimalaweera Dissanayake, Lohan Ratwatte and Premalal Jayasekara all left the SLFP to join the new party.

The event was reported on social media pages linked to Rajapaksa including his official Facebook page, a fact pointed out by TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran in Parliament, who even went on to show some photos of MP’s receiving the SLPP membership.

Rajapaksa said the media had misconstrued the event and reported it as an event of handing over membership. “That card was not a membership card and I was merely distributing it”, he said, claiming it did not even contain a name. Responding to the TNA’s claims that its leader R. Sampanthan remains as Opposition Leader, Rajapaksa said Sampanthan and the group can hold any view they believe in. “The Speaker must make a decision and the UPFA General Secretary has already sent a letter to him confirming my political membership status,” Rajapaksa said.
Though the pictures portrayed a different picture, holding a press briefing this week after MP Mahinda Rajapaksa was named as the Opposition Leader by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, MP Mahindananda Aluthgamage seated before a discreetly covered up party banner too reiterated Rajapaksa’s claims.

Assuring that Rajapaksa is still a member of the SLFP along with his fellow MP’s Aluthgamage claimed Rs. 3000 was deducted from Rajapaksa’s MP salary and credited to SLFP account. “It is a normal procedure that all SLFP MPs must follow to retain their membership of the party,” he said such payments would provide enough evidence that MP Mahinda Rajapaksa had not left the SLFP.

However, when questioned regarding the ceremony at MP Mahinda Rajapaksa’s official residence where he and MPs who supported him obtained membership of SLPP and the twitter messages of MP Mahinda Rajapaksa and Namal Rajapaksa saying that they had joined the SLPP, MP Aluthgamage ducked the questions. “The SLPP General Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam will issue a statement clarifying that”, he said.

Writing to the Speaker TNA MP M.A Sumanthiran voiced his dissent against Rajapaksa’s appointment. According to Sumanthiran, the UPFA cannot be recognised as an Opposition party as it participates in the government.

“The Leader of the UPFA is the head of the Government and the Cabinet,” he said in his letter adding that he also holds ministerial portfolios thereby proving that the UPFA cannot be considered as a party in the opposition. He also said that in any event Rajapaksa and several other MPs have ceased to be parliamentarians as it is public knowledge that the group has left the SLFP to obtain membership of the SLPP.

Sumanthiran urged the Speaker to not recognise Rajapaksa or any MP who may have possibly vacated their seat in these circumstances as Leader of the Opposition before certain factual positions are clarified following the appointment of a select committee of parliament and a motion is submitted.

Faced with objections Speaker Karu Jayasuriya on Friday postponed his decision on whether MP Mahinda Rajapaksa could be appointed as the Opposition Leader. “A group of lawmakers have requested in writing to appoint a special committee. UPFA Secretary General Mahinda Amaraweera has written to me on the matter. So, I will give my decisions as soon as possible after considering the requests and opinions received,” the Speaker told Parliament.

As the Speaker requested more time, it appears the fate of Rajapaksa and his supporters’ membership in Parliament along with the possibility of obtaining the post of Opposition Leader will hang in the balance till a decision is made.

The question that baffles the nation: Why is Sirisena still holding office?

Senior SLFP stalwart Welgama tells President in no uncertain terms: ‘You’ve violated the constitution: you must go’

 

 FLASHBACK TO HIS SMILING, SHINING HOUR: File photo of Maithripala Sirisena emerging from his car four years ago on November 20th in 2014 to announce his intention to contest the presidency as the UNP-led opposition’s common candidate

Sunday, December 23, 2018

 

Today on the presidential throne of Lanka, there sits a man who gambled with the nation’s heirloom of democracy and endangered the people’s sovereign inheritance, who gambled with the nation’s economy and imperiled it, who gambled with the nation’s international image and sullied it, who placed his bets and waged his all on his bizarre belief that he could transgress chapter and verse of the nation’s legal bible with impudence and could escape being found guilty of sinning against it, one who gambled reckless with the people’s rights, with the people’s money, with the people’s reputation, with the nation’s stability and lost, and lost badly.

 

A man who became the spendthrift of a people’s mandate and squandered the trust and confidence of over six million who had voted for him four years ago in the belief he would not violate their faith. Nor dishonour his oath.

 

Did he think on that fateful October 26th night when he embarked on a mad excursion that took him beyond the ambit of the constitution’s parameters and, in the cover of darkness and secrecy, appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister displacing Ranil who commanded the confidence of the House; and then nonchalantly went on to dissolve Parliament itself though the supreme law forbade it unless two thirds of its members requested its dissolution before four and a half years of its five year expiry date, that he could give play to his pipedream and violate the constitution at his whim and fancy without any backlash from the legal guardian deities of Lanka’s justice?

 

Maithripala Sirisena has a lot to answer for taking the nation on a hell-raising roller coaster ride not in pursuance of the people’s interest but purely to advance some diabolic agenda of his own that finally hit the buffers and came a cropper.

 

The only question that remains to be answered is why it’s still Christmas for him? Why is the man still here, draped in purple, wearing the crown and holding scepter and orb of presidential office?

 

Especially when a seven-judge bench held him guilty last week of the cardinal sin of violating the precepts of his own Sirisena Testament, namely, the 19th Amendment, which he himself had laboured to get enacted as engineer and bagged credit for being its architect.

 

In the landmark judgment, the Supreme Court issued last Thursday, it unanimously held that the gazette notification of November 9th which dissolved Parliament by presidential proclamation was null and void ab initio and had not only violated the fundamental rights of its 122 petitioners but had also trampled upon the fundamental rights of the nation’s 21 million citizenry.

 

No other president in the nation’s recent 40-year history of presidential rule, including President Rajapaksa, has been found guilty by the Supreme Court of willfully violating the constitutional creed, of trespassing beyond the gamut of its provisions in blatant disregard to the people’s sovereign rights enshrined therein and held by all as sacrosanct.

 

Sirisena was on the dock last Thursday in the highest court of the land, even as he had been in the public pillory at ground zero for over seven weeks. And to no one’s surprise was found guilty of the heinous offence — coming as it did from the first citizen of the land — of violating the constitution.

 

Article 38(2)(a) of the Constitution states: Any member of Parliament may by a writing addressed to the Speaker give notice of a resolution alleging that the President is permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office by reason of mental or physical incapacity or that the president has been guilty of an intentional violation of the constitution.

 

The first leg of this proviso is already before court when a citizen of this country has petitioned the courts to order the IGP and the DIG of the district he lives in to the probe the mental state of the President’s mind as provided for in the Mental Ordinance: Another first for Sirisena, as the first President of this country, to suffer the ignominy of having the question of his mental state placed in the judicial arena.

 

But hasn’t the second proviso ‘that the president has been guilty of an intentional violation of the constitution’ already come to pass?

 

Consider, as a layman, whether he could have chosen a better route to arrive at better judgment? The constitution provides him, as the president, the sole privilege of seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court as to the correctness of the action he envisages to take: Whether he has the constitutional authority to take it or whether it will infringe upon its provisions.

 

Mahinda Rajapaksa astutely took that course when he, in November 2014, requested the Supreme Court to deliver unto him their opinion whether there was any constitutional bar for him to contest the presidential election for the third time, even though it was clear to all that the 18th Amendment he had enacted, entitled him to contest the post in perpetuity to make dawn a Rajapaksa dynasty. But he still went by the rule book, even though the principal to rule on the matter was his appointed warden.

 

But did Sirisena seek the opinion of the Supreme Court and await its wise counsel whether he will be infringing upon the provisions of the constitution when he appointed Rajapaksa as Prime Minister who did not command the confidence of the House, summarily sacking the one who did? Did he two weeks later, seek the opinion of the Supreme Court before he issued his gazette proclamation dissolving Parliament before its time? Did he, at least, seek the legal opinion of the Attorney General, Jayantha Jayasuriya, duty bound as he is as the Government’s lawyer to tend his opinion when called for? No he did not. Probably because he knew it would not be to his favour, to his own warped line of thinking.

 

Instead he stuck to his guns and sought the refuge of his own counsel, aided and abetted by the coterie of his advisors, yes men who perhaps nodded their heads in agreement, lest a nay will bring the presidential guillotine crashing down on their necks.

 

Whatever the layman’s leaning maybe as to the profundity of Sirisena’s judgment, let’s read for good measure what seven Supreme Court Judges had to say about his conduct unbecoming.

 

In a voice that shrilled in unison, to echo the choir of Hulftsdorp Hill, to awaken the dulled masses from the torpidness of sleep, Chief Justice Nalin Perera had this to say in his landmark judgment of President Sirisena’s unilateral and arbitrary actions:

 

He declared that the constitution did not bestow upon the President unrestricted omnipotent power. It was not akin to a royal prerogative power, the Chief Justice ruled. The head of State, the President, was nothing more than a creature of the constitution; and his powers were limited to those that were specifically vested in him under the Constitution and the law. And, equally, the exercise of the same powers by the President is circumscribed by the provisions of the Constitution and the law.

 

If President Sirisena had dreamt in his wildest dreams that he had, like ancient kings of yore, a divine right to rule the land protected by an armour of infallibility where his sole word was law, he should have been shaken to find, in the words of the Chief Justice, that he had been highly mistaken. And, in gaudy daylight, realised that he was not only a creature of the constitution but, in UNP parlance, a caterpillar turned butterfly under Ranil’s auspices.

But if that was bad in the Supreme Court’s damnation, worse was to come. The quintessence of the Supreme Court judgment held that the president had not only violated the rights of the petitioners in their capacity as parliamentarians but their right as citizens of this country. Chief Justice Nalin Perera said: “The Proclamation has been issued outside legal limits and has resulted in a violation of Petitioner‘s rights both in his capacity as a parliamentarian legitimately elected to represent the People and in the capacity of a citizen who is entitled to be protected from any arbitrary exercise of power.”

 

And he didn’t stop there. He went to drive the last nail home.

 

The Chief Justice declared: “For the reasons set out above, I hold that the Petitioners’ rights guaranteed under Article 12 (1) of the Constitution have been violated by the issue of the Proclamation and make order quashing the said Proclamation and declaring the said Proclamation null, void ab initio and without force or effect in law.

For the first time in Lanka’s forty years of presidential rule, had a president been found guilty violating the fundamental rights of its citizens. A violation of the constitution which Sirisena as President had sworn to uphold, both in letter and in spirit.

 

And, for further measure, Supreme Court Justice Sisira de Abrew, in his separate but concurring judgment added: “It is the duty of the President of the Republic to respect and uphold the Constitution. This view is supported by Article 33(1) of the Constitution which reads as follows. 33.(1) It shall be the duty of the President to (a) ensure that the Constitution is respected and upheld.”

 

Justice Abrew declared: “The President of the Republic in terms of Article 32 of the Constitution must take an oath stating that he would uphold and defend the Constitution. Therefore it is seen that the President of the Republic is subject to the Constitution. In Mallikaarchchi Vs Shivapasupathi, Attorney General wherein Sharvananda CJ held thus: “the President is not above the law.”

 

Parliament need not impeach the president. The Supreme Court, in a tacit, subtle, unsaid nudge, had already delivered its pronunciation though it may never have intended to do so for the issue was not before its Lordships’ court.

So much for the layman’s view and the legal indictment from the apex bench of seven supreme judges on the president’s conduct and ‘arbitrary exercise of power’ and ‘constitutional violation’.

 

Politically, worse was to follow in the legal track. And the neigh broke nigh in the very Sirisena stables when a senior SLFP stallion kicked its hooves in the presidential face and made him eat hay under the scorch of justice’s sun.

 

Sixty-eight-year old Kumar Welgama, a long standing SLFP stalwart, was the first and only one from the SLFP galleon to mutiny against his captain’s decision to throw Ranil overboard and make Mahinda his first mate. He said then, “ Mahinda need not have come from the back door when he could have come from the front entrance” — and stating that he was against Sirisena’s sordid affair, washed his hands off it.

 

But if that was just a taster as to his own distaste to what was happening within his own political party, this potential SLFP presidential candidate unleashed the full venom of ire and dissatisfaction of the manner in which his leader Sirisena had conducted himself. Coming from the old born-and-bred SLFP stock, it was more potent poison than any member of the UNP could have mustered and would have served to sting Sirisena and rattled him to his core.

 

In a no-holds-barred statement, coming shortly after the Supreme Court verdict last Thursday, Welgama called for his leader’s resignation forthwith.

 

The SLFP Vice President and Kalutara District MP Kumara Welgama told The Island:

 

“The Supreme Court has found that President Sirisena violated the Constitution. One who has acted in contravention of the Constitution should not hold that position. He can be impeached any moment and, more than that, he should be aware that continuing to hold that post by a person who violated the constitution can give rise to numerous other problems.”

 

The SLFP stalwart said that when a country was led by a person who had no legitimacy to hold the post of head of state, other law enforcing authorities would find it difficult to discharge their duties to uphold the rule of law.

“It is time for Sirisena to step down from the post and let the constitutional process to take its own course. His stay in that post will only further worsen the situation. On the other hand, this issue will be detrimental to the country’s interests internationally. Being a seasoned politician the President should understand the possible repercussions of this situation. A president who does not respect a court ruling cannot be trusted to respect anything at all.”

 

So much for the lay abhorrence, so much for the legal condemnation, so much for the abomination coming from his own backyard uttered by a vice president of the party Sirisena betrayed in 2014 after a hopper crunch with Mahinda but with the UNF help won the presidency and upon becoming president managed to capture the SLFP leadership, let’s turn now to the moral issue that must keep him awake sometimes at least on Friday nights.

First, when he, in a televised address, stated that he owes his position to the UNF and that, he will never betray the trust placed on him but will always bear gratitude until he breathes his last. Has he done so? By making Ranil walk the plank, he has only succeeded, whatever the political differences he may have had, in throwing the nation’s fortunes overboard and destabilising the ship of state, mindless as to whether it’s wrecked upon the rocks.

 

Second, he seems to suffer from a congenital defect that must cause the nation to worry. It’s his inability to comprehend the limitations of his powers coupled with his stubbornness to seek advice from the Supreme Court or consult the Attorney General at least for help and guidance, especially when it comes to appointing a prime minister.

 

He seems to think, the power is absolute when it is not. He seems to think that the one who commands his confidence is the man for the job when the constitution spells it as not. As the Sunday Punch spelled it on December 9th:

 

“Article 42(4) states: ‘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 operative phrase is ‘command the confidence of Parliament.’ Not command the confidence of the president.

In the event of an uncertainty as to the Member of Parliament who is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament, the President is entitled under this Article to use his discretion, right or wrongly, to appoint the one the President thinks is most likely to command Parliament’s confidence: To choose between X or Y.

 

But if Parliament, in its total choir of 225 were to sing in one unified harmonious voice the hosannas of one Member as the chosen one who commanded their confidence, the President’s discretionary power stands negated and he must surrender his discretionary opinion to that imperial combined command of Parliament.

It’s the failure to realise the ambit of his constitutional powers that has landed Sirisena in the mess he is in. His failure to realise that even 113 MPs in Parliament expressing their demand for one MP to be the Prime Minister will do to rob him of his discretion to appoint one of his choice. Pity.”

 

But this failure is nothing new. Shortly before the General Elections of 2015, he held the same view and decalred that even if the UPFA wins the elections, he will not appoint Rajapaksa as Prime Minister even if the House were to swear by him.

 

In a statement issued by the President’s media unit, he stated: “I will continue to give leadership to the change ushered in on January 8 with the newly elected members after the next General election, I will form a government with the victorious political parties after August 17 election but I have no intention of appointing Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister.”

 

And he did it again this year when it came to the reinstatement of Ranil as prime minister whom he had rashly sacked though no constitutional provision provided him the right to do so after the 19th Amendment became law.

He told political party representatives last month that he would not re-appoint UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister. The President indicated to them that another person should be nominated to the post instead of Mr. Wickremesinghe in the event Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa was unseated through a properly passed no-confidence motion against him.

 

On November 25th he said, in an interview with the foreign media, “I will not appoint Ranil Wickremesinghe as prime minister in my lifetime. Even if they have a majority, I have told them not to propose him as I won’t appoint him as prime minister.”

 

He elaborated further and said that if Ranil Wickremesinghe is reinstated as Prime Minster he will resign within the hour and go home.

 

Last Sunday Ranil Wickremesinghe was sworn in by President Sirisena as prime minister. The question now on the nation’s lips is: ‘Has Sirisena’s watch stopped. Or else why is he still here, draped in purple.’

 

How much more can a mortal man take, though he be president ‘to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous times’ when he finds himself scorned by his countryman, condemned by the courts and cast stones by his own party stalwarts to sit clad in sarong on the purple presidential throne of Lanka?

 

Rajapaksa’s folly was not to retire to his Medamulana home in grace and style when the bells tolled for him. Now that the bells toll for Sirisena, perhaps, it’s best for him to retire to Polonnaruwa on gardening leave.

---

X MAS WISH
Hark now hear the angels sing
A new king born today
And man will live for evermore
Because of Christmas Day
Wishing you all a Merry Christmas
-Don Manu

 

 

The irony in the oath ceremony

Last Sunday Ranil Wickremesinghe was sworn in for the fifth time as Lanka’s prime minister, even though there was no earthly or legal reason why he had been re-sworn to the post, maintaining as he did he was the legal prime minister since he was first sworn in on August 18, 2015. But never mind, At least it enabled him to set a world record as being the only politician on the planet to be sworn in not once or twice but five times as prime minister.

During the course of the week, ministers were also sworn in together with a whole host of deputies and state ministers.

 

They all took their oaths before the President and solemnly vowed to uphold the constitution. Ironical and funny isn’t it, that when Ranil took his oaths as prime minister and his cabinet of ministers and deputies took their oaths and swore in to uphold the sacrosanct constitution they did before a president whom the Supreme Court had condemned only last Thursday as being guilty of violating the constitution he had sworn to uphold on 9th January 2015.

Tension between President Maithri and the UNP settled but not solved

 DEC 23 2018

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe took oaths before President Maithripala Sirisena  last Sunday by creating history as the only person who was appointed as the Prime Minister for five times and sending former President Mahinda Rajapaksa down country’s political history by making him the shortest serving  Prime Minister.

Rajapaksa resigned from the Prime Minister’s post on 15 December 2018, after serving for 50 days by becoming shortest serving Prime Minister in the country’s history after the late Dr. W. Dahanayake.

Dahanayake was in office for a little under six months from 26 September 1959 to 20 March 1960. Wickremesinghe’s removal from office on 26 October triggered a Constitutional furore that snowballed into a major political crisis, where the country was heading for a shutdown. Speaking to supporters and the media shortly after he took his oaths, Wickremesinghe declared that the country was heading for utter turmoil following the Constitutional crisis and the job at hand for his Government was to stabilise the economy and bring in more development among other matters that will benefit the masses.

He made these remarks at the Prime Minister’s official residence, the ‘Temple Trees’, in Colombo yesterday.

Premier Wickremesinghe added that the new Government would work to save the country from further havoc and towards this end the next step would be to appoint a fresh Cabinet of Ministers at the very earliest.

 “The development we started for this country was unfortunately halted during the past 50 days. As the very first duty, we should make the country stable and start from where we left. For the past three and a half years we worked for our people, but now I pledge that I will bring good governance where the citizen’s sovereignty is protected.”

Wickremesinghe pledged to build up a society with a powerful economy and added that this is a victory for the citizens and for Sri Lanka’s democratic institutions.
“We are proud to say that the Parliament and the Judiciary worked and performed according to the laws and regulations of the country and on the other hand, the sovereignty of the Parliament was protected by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya’s contribution.”

Speaking further, Wickremesinghe said that by the interpretation of the Constitution, people became aware of their true independence in the country.
“We want to spend a normal life. We need our development and we worked for it. And this is the good result that we gained. I thank everyone who stood firm in defending the Constitution and ensuring the triumph of democracy,” he said.
Meanwhile, President Sirisena after reinstating Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister was engaged in a scathing attack on the Government, clearly indicating he was not willing to let go of the past.

“I clearly pointed out in the recent past in the matter regarding filing cases against Bhikkhus need to be done carefully. There were no elephants for the Perahera from temples or Dewalas and that resulted in a major socio-religious and cultural resistance over this. As such, I asked to study the legality and release the elephants. Over this issue, we lost the support of the entire Bhikkhu community.
I must also clearly mention about imprisoning the members of the tri-forces. I asked not to imprison our soldiers who have fought in battles and defeated terrorism; but nobody listened to me. As our army is a disciplined and cultured army, they act with patience.

Today, the international community ask us to punish our soldiers, from all over the world, yet they do not ask for punishments for the people of Prabhakaran who have destroyed our army and innocent people. Even today, the senior leaders of the LTTE freely roam around in many countries in the world. The same international forces point fingers at us and demand investigating into actions of the Army. The LTTEers are the ones who committed all these wrongdoings. But the international community still demands conducting inquires against our forces.
 They accuse us of violating human rights and international laws. But, they killed nearly 100,000 members of our tri-forces, police, civil defence forces as well as a President of this country. So, where is a programme to find and bring to justice those who have committed all these gross violations and now hiding in various parts of the world? The international community is silent about it. Not even anyone in the country talks about it.  If the members of our security forces are to be punished, the LTTEers should also be punished. If not, both sides should agree to remove those punishments. Here, I clearly hold a firm view that the forces should be freed after discussing with the international community.
 There is a request that Tamil prisoners with LTTE connections should be released. We held several discussions. If the Tamil prisoners are to be freed, then our soldiers should also be freed from different court cases that have been filed against them. That is justice. You cannot do this merely by investigating into one side.

During the recent incidents, your debaters said that I will be dragged and be murdered like Gaddafi. Some of your MPs said I will also be burnt in my own house with my family. The NGO operatives who were holding press conferences also said so. Why do they say that? No State leader in this country had been targeted like this. There were severe issues in the country during the tenure of President J.R. Jayewardene who was considered as a very strict ruler. I was imprisoned because I spoke against J.R. Jayewardene’s Government.

Even J.R. Jayewardene was not talked about like this; President Premadasa was not treated like this. How many misdeeds were committed against Chandrika Bandaranaike? Nobody talked about them like that. Nobody said Mahinda Rajapaksa will be dragged like Gaddafi. I was threatened like that because I am the only person who would silently watch. If the former leaders including J.R. were insulted like that, nobody would have been able to save their lives. But they know that the house of a man like me could be burnt down and person like me could be dragged liked that.

Just as there are good people, there are criminals and underworld gangs. It was those evil forces that made those barbaric pronouncements. I did not see anyone of you making a statement about the conspiracy to assassinate me. The conspiracy has not yet been proven, but it has certain particulars that should be clearly addressed. As the Police are under me these days, there is a big progress in these investigations. Yet the biggest misfortune is that when the conspiracy to assassinate the President of the country was taken up in the courts, there was not a single person of the Criminal Investigations Department to be found in the court premises.”

Appointing Cabinet

Even though Prime Minister Wickremesinghe was reinstated appointing a Cabinet of Ministers was delayed due to disagreements between the President and the Prime Minister over the allocation of ministerial portfolios. On the other hand UNP Leader Wickremesinghe was also under pressure by his own party men over ministry allocations.

President Sirisena was said to have cut down the list of Cabinet Ministers from the original 36 to 28.

He has said that the Cabinet should comprise only of 30 ministers, including President, Prime Minister and 28 Ministers.

He is said to have stressed that members of the SLFP or UPFA who join the UNF Government, would not be given ministerial portfolios and they will also not receive his blessings.

Meanwhile, at a meeting of UNF MPs held in the Parliament under the patronage of PM Wickremesinghe earlier on in the week, MPs Sajith Premadasa and Naveen Dissanayake had stressed that the MPs with corruption allegations should not be given ministerial portfolios.

After deliberating on the list for three days, the Cabinet of 29 ministers was finally sworn in by President Sirisena on Thursday.

Not even a minute attempt was made from the side of the President Sirisena to hide that he was doing everything under duress as there was no choice left. Not only was there no formal ceremony organised to swear in ministers, but they were taken into a room at the Presidential Secretariat, one by one.

Doors were closed to media and only President’s Media Division was allowed to cover the swearing-in of each minister. While, only few accepted their appointment letters with a broad smile, everyone else was unable to hide their confusion and disappointment. Almost all ministers were confused about the manner in which things had been arranged while others were extremely disappointed about the portfolios they received.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has reportedly refused to have any eye contact with President Sirisena when he took oaths as Minister of National Policies and Economic Affairs, Rehabilitation and Prison Reforms, Northern Development, and Vocational Training, Skill Development and Youth Affairs.

John Amaratunga on the other hand was happy to be appointed the Minister of Tourism Development and Christian Religious Affairs and was one of the few who was cordial with the President.

Ravi Karunanayake, who had to previously step down as the Minister of Foreign Affairs over allegations that arose out of the probe into the Central Bank Treasury Bonds scam, was appointed Minister of Power and Energy and Enterprise Development.

The accepted tradition once a new Cabinet of Ministers is sworn in is for the President to pose for a group photograph with the newly appointed Prime Minister and the Cabinet but this was not the case after the swearing-in of the 29-Member Cabinet.

President Sirisena had reportedly left the Presidential Secretariat in less than 10 minutes after the swearing-in of the new Cabinet.

No portfolios

In the appointment of the UNF Cabinet of Ministers, three former ministers were overlooked.

Parliamentarians Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, D.M. Swaminathan and Ravindra Samaraweera had not been assigned ministries.

While it was reported President Sirisena has vehemently opposed giving a portfolio to Fonseka until he extended an apology to President publicly for his previous derogatory remarks, Swaminathan had been denied a ministerial portfolio due to immense pressure from the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). The TNA has threatened to withdraw its support to PM Wickremesinghe in the event of Swaminathan was appointed a minister.

Four other UNF MPs, Thilak Marapana PC, Malik Samarawickrema, Rishad Bathiudeen and Mano Ganesan, who had claimed they will not take Cabinet posts during the UNF Parliamentary group meeting, earlier in the week, were reinstated in their former posts.

Another UNP MP who was recently noted for going back and forth from the UNP to the UPFA, Parliamentarian Vasantha Senanayaka was also not given a Cabinet posting at yesterday’s swearing-in of the new Cabinet.

Furthermore, three SLFP and UPFA Parliamentarians, who crossed over at the last session of Parliament, namely Vijith Vijithamuni Zoysa, Indika Bandaranayaka and Lakshman Seneviratna were also similarly overlooked for Cabinet posts.

The President had also kept his word of not providing any Ministerial posts to the three Sri Lanka SLFP and UPFA Parliamentarians who had recently crossed over to the United National Front (UNF) Government ranks.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe condemned the conduct of some print and electronic media which he referred to as "Black Media".

Wickremesinghe said that a debate on these "Black Media" would be held in January in the House. "The names of these Black Media will be listed out from top to bottom. I hope media will give us a live coverage for this debate. Remember, two can play this game." he said.

The PM said that legal action could be taken against some of the press and media stations that have carried wrong particulars on the names proposed by the Prime Minister for the Cabinet. "Some press reports said that I had proposed MP Vijith Wijayamuni Zoysa’s name for the Cabinet. But I did not. These media stations better get their cheque books ready to pay penalties for such irresponsible reporting. Are you going to correct this story? Are you going to broadcast my speech today?" he said in Parliament on Friday.

SF on assassination plot

UNP Parliamentarian Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka on Friday said in Parliament that IGP Pujith Jayasundara had informed Speaker Karu Jayasuriya that there was no evidence linking him to the alleged plot to assassinate President Maithripala Sirisena.

Fonseka said on 9 November he had made a request to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya to inquire from Jayasundara whether he had any involvement in the assassination attempt as the matter concerned his parliamentary privilege and his position as an MP.

“Following my request, the Speaker took swift action and had asked for a clarification from Jayasundara on the matter. The latter has now sent a letter to the Speaker in this regard. He had attached a report obtained from the Head of the CID, Senior DIG Ravi Seneviratne,” he added.

Fonseka then read out the IGP’s letter along with the report from the CID to the House and tabled them.

“Seneviratne has informed the IGP that there were no complaints against me and they haven’t found any evidence that I have any involvement in the case.  Now it is clear that I had nothing to do with this alleged assassination attempt. However, there is this madman, Operations Director of the Anti-Corruption Force Namal Kumara and he is continuously issuing statements dragging my name. Certain media stations give publicity to such statements. I request the Speaker to advise such media stations not to give publicity to such fake news as it is a violation of our privileges,” Fonseka concluded.

Who blocked investigations?

The Presidential Secretariat yesterday alleged that a parliamentary Sectoral Committee had deliberately undermined the process to amend laws required to handle Treasury bond scams in 2015 and 2016. The alleged scams involved the Central Bank and the Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL).

The Presidential Secretariat also alleged though the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) that probed Treasury bond scams had recommended a forensic audit on 18 January, 2018, it had not been launched.

The media was briefed on the ongoing probe following a meeting chaired by President Maithripala Sirisena at the Presidential Secretariat on Friday 21 December. Among those present were Attorney General Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, Director General, CIABOC, Sarath Jayamanne, PC, Senior DIG of the CID, Ravi Seneviratne and Senior Deputy Governor of the CBSL Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe.

They also discussed the urgent need to expedite investigations into the Treasury bond scams. They pointed out the inordinate delay in moving court against those who lied before the PCoI and destroyed evidence pertaining to the case.

It was also revealed that foreign expertise hadn't been sought to recover deleted telephone conversations. They alleged that the phones used by suspects hadn't been subjected to overseas scrutiny and relevant agencies had been pressured to delay investigations.

It was also revealed that Singapore hadn't taken action yet to extradite Singaporean Arjuna Mahendran wanted in connection with the investigation.

President Sirisena has directed relevant authorities to expedite the investigation.