SAMPANTHAN THROWS A DETAILED LEGAL CHALLENGE TO SPEAKER KARU JASURIYA REGARDING THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION POST IN SRI LANKA PARLIAMENT

The speech make by R. Sampannthan in the parliament today (25.01.2019 follows.

Leader of the Opposition Sri Lankan Parliament

25/01/2019


Honorable Speaker
Parliament
Jayewardenepura Kotte
Sir,
I seek your leave to raise the following question relating to a matter of public importance “The Position of the Leader of the Opposition in the Sri Lankan Parliament”

1. You made a statement in Parliament on 18^th December 2018, pertaining to the position of Leader of the Opposition. In the course of the said statement you mentioned that you had received a letter from the Secretary of United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) which claimed to have the second largest number of members of Parliament and requesting that Hon Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. You also stated that you were acceding to the request as the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) had the second largest number of members of Parliament.

2. Some Hon Members of Parliament raised questions in regard to this matter on the said date and stated Firstly, that though the UPFA indisputably had the second largest number of Members of Parliament they could not hold the post of the Leader of the Opposition as they were a part of the Government. Secondly, that Hon Mahinda Rajapaksa the appointee to the post of Leader of the Opposition, under Article 99 sub section 13A of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialistic Republic of Sri Lanka. subsequent to he having become a member of the Podu Jana Peramuna a political party distinct and different from the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) on whose nomination paper Hon Mahinda Rajapaksa’s name appeared at the time of the election and 30 days having lapsed from the date on which he ceased to be a member of the UPFA had ceased to be a Member of Parliament and could not therefore be the Leader of the Opposition. You stated that you would respond to these questions on a later date.

3. I made a Statement in Parliament on 19^th December 2018, in the course of which I myself referred to the aforesaid two matters mentioned in para 2 above. In the course of the said statement I stated that in September 2015 as the Leader of the Illankai Thamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) the second largest party in opposition in the Sri Lankan Parliament you recognized me as the Leader of the Opposition. Further, in August 2018 as the Leader of the Illankai Thamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) the second largest party in Parliament you once again recognized me as the Leader of the Opposition. On both these occasions you recognized the Leader of the second largest party in Parliament as the leader of the Opposition for the reason that the largest party in opposition in Parliament the UPFA was also represented in Government.

4. The Hon Deputy Speaker on your behalf made a statement in Parliament on 8^th of January 2019, where he stated your position in regard to the aforesaid matters. In the course of the said statement there is no reference whatsoever to the UPFA also being represented in Government and therefore not being entitled to serve as the official opposition. You have thereby failed to refer to the crucial reason stated by you when recognizing me the Leader of the second largest party in opposition as the Leader of the Opposition twice: first in September 2015 secondly in August 2018.

5. In regard to the aforesaid two matters I consider it my duty to place on record the following matters for your information and necessary appropriate action.

1. Under Article 30 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialistic Republic Sri Lanka the President of the Republic of Sri Lanka is the Head of State, the Head of the Executive and of the Government.
2. Under Article 42 Sub sections 1,2 and 3 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialistic Republic Sri Lanka

1. There shall be a Cabinet of Ministers charged with the direction and control of the Government of the Republic
2. The Cabinet of Ministers shall be collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament
3. The President shall be a member of the Cabinet of Ministers and shall be the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers

6. You will observe from the provisions of the sections set out in para 5 above that the President of the Republic is the Head of the Executive and of the government the President is a member of the Cabinet of Ministers and the President is also the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers. The Cabinet of Ministers of which the President is a member and the Head shall be collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament. Further, under Article 51 of the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution, the current President as long as he holds the Office of President may assign to himself the subjects and functions of Defence, Mahaweli Development and Environment, and determine the Ministries to be in his charge for that purpose, and the President on his own volition has assigned to himself the subjects and functions of Defence, Mahaweli Development and Environment. The President has also assigned to himself other subjects and functions.

7. The President is also Head of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) and Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) a constituent party of the UPFA.

8. You will thus observe that the current President of the Democratic Socialistic Republic Sri Lanka while being a member of the Cabinet of Ministers holding several portfolios and the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers the Head of the Executive and of the Government and while being collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament as a member of the Cabinet of Ministers is also the Head of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) a constituent party of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA).

9. Hon Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa, sought to be appointed as the Leader of the Opposition is a leading member of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), a constituent member of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA). In fact his name has been proposed to the position of Leader of the Opposition by the Secretary of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA).

10. You will thus observe that the President who is the Head of the Executive and Government member of the Cabinet of Ministers holding several portfolios and Head of the Cabinet of Ministers and the purported appointee to the position of the Leader of the Opposition Hon Mahinda Rajapaksa are both from the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) and Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), a constituent party of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA).

11. You will thus observe that there is clear and definite conflict of interest between the duties and functions performed by the President in the capacities referred to above and the duties and functions of Hon Mahinda Rajapaksa in his capacity as Leader of the opposition. They both belong to the UPFA and its constituent party SLFP. In this context may I refer to an article written by Dr. Nihal Jayawickrema, a leading legal luminary in the Sunday Island January 6^th 2019, wherein he states the following: I quote “Under the Constitution the President is the Head of the Government. Of his own choice Maithiripala Sirisena is also the President of SLFP and the UPFA which is a coalition of likeminded political parties that includes the SLFP. Mahinda Rajapaksa who claims to be member of the SLFP /UPFA is reportedly now the Leader of the opposition. Therefore, Parliament is entitled to ask the President to explain how he can concurrently serve as Head of the Government and as Head of the Opposition and whether he does not understand that functioning simultaneously in both capacities is a gross violation of the fundamental democratic basis of the Constitution”. This statement of Dr Nihal Jayawickrema is clearly indicative of the extent of the conflict of interest. This position would not arise if Hon Mahinda Rajapaksa was not Leader of the Opposition, which is a recognition accorded to him by you.

12. An effort is being made to make out that similar situations had arisen during the terms of previous Presidents. It needs to be pointed out that this question has never been raised before, and no ruling has been given by any Hon Speaker on this question. Now that the question has been raised the matter needs to be addressed on the basis of the relevant Constitutional provisions, Parliamentary practices and conventions and the relevant facts relating to the conflict of interest between the Offices of the Head of the government and the Head of the opposition.

13. May I also in this context refer to “Parliamentary Practice” by Erskine May 24^th edition, pages 334 and 335. This deals with the question of Opposition’s time and who determines such Opposition time in the House of Commons. I quote from Erskine May: “ Standing Order number 14 provides that on 20 days in each session, proceedings on business chosen by the opposition parties shall have precedence over Government business” it further states “ 17 of the days so allocated are at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition and 3 at the disposal of the Leader of the second largest opposition party” this is defined in the standing order as the party of those members not represented in the government which has the second largest members elected to the House as members of that party. It is abundantly clear from the above that any political party to be recognized as the official opposition must not be represented in the government. It’s also abundantly clear from what I have stated earlier. that the UPFA is in fact represented in Government. It also emphasizes the importance given to the second largest party in the opposition, the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Katchi – the Tamil National Alliance is in that position in our Parliament. In this context may I also refer to sec 8 of our Parliament (Powers and Privileges Act) which states as follows, I quote “Journals of the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or of the proceedings of the said House or of a report of any Committee of the said House shall be received as prima facie evidence. The practices prevalent in the House of Commons are thus of relevance to us.

14. It also cannot be disputed that several members of the UPFA and the SLFP a constituent party of the UPFA elected to Parliament on the nomination paper of the UPFA have crossed over to government sit on the government benches and now represent the government in Parliament. This circumstance further strengthens the position that the UPFA is represented in Government and in the circumstances Hon Mahinda Rajapaksa who is also a member of the UPFA and SLFP a constituent party of the UPFA and proposed by the Secretary of the UPFA to the post of Leader of the Opposition is not entitled to hold the post of the Leader of the Opposition.

15. In regard to the second issue pertaining to Article 99 sub section 13A of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialistic Republic of Sri Lanka and the impact of the said provisions consequent to Hon Mahinda Rajapaksa ceasing to be a member of the party on whose nomination paper he was elected, in deference to your view that you have already ruled on this matter I will not raise that issue in the course of this statement.

16. I do however, wish to state that this issue remains an open question and that a determination on this issue needs to be arrived at in the appropriate forum.

17. It is fundamental that the Truth be ascertained in regard to this matter The Constitution the Supreme Law of the Country and the facts related to the implementation of provisions contained in the Constitution cannot be manipulated or subverted to suit the needs of individuals. To be a party to such act would be to deny the sanctity of the Constitution. I consider it my duty to place on record these facts to ensure that the Constitution and the Constitutional practices and conventions that I have referred are followed.

18. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I do so not because I or the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Katchi the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) are hankering after office. We have never sought office. In 1983 16 Tamil Members of Parliament of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) on principle refused to take an oath and consequently sacrificed their seats in Parliament when we had six years more to serve as members of Parliament. I was the first of the 16 members of Parliament to vacate my seat. We have declined office on other occasions which is a matter of public knowledge. But we do think that the rights of the minority political parties and minority peoples should not be jeopardized by manipulating or subverting either the Constitution or accepted constitutional practices and conventions so as to serve the interests of individuals catering to majoritarianism. I do further think that rights which Constitutionally accrue to minority parties and minority peoples should be protected and preserved. That’s why Mr Speaker I consider it imperative that I make this statement in Parliament.

Thank you
R Sampanthan
Member of Parliament.
(as sent by the TNA media office)

Let’s PhilippOpine

Saturday, 26 January 2019 

 Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena made a historic visit to the Philippines, a five-day State visit supposedly to undertake negotiations with his counterpart President Rodrigo Duterte.

The two leaders held bilateral talks on areas of mutual interest, including political, economic, cultural and people-to-people engagement. This is certainly a historic visit. President Sirisena’s visit to Manila is the first by a Sri Lankan President serving as both Head of State and Government.

Like in any foreign visit by respective leaders, nations learn from each other. President Maithripala it seems had shown a keen interest in the Philippines war on drugs. Its colourful President has done some awful things in controlling the drug menace.

Since taking office in 2016, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has carried out a ruthless “war on drugs” that has led to the deaths of over 12,000 Filipinos. Duterte and senior officials had apparently instigated and incited killings in a campaign that could amount to crimes against humanity. If such draconian atrocities are unleashed in Sri Lanka, many a Parliamentarian would be netted, hence it’s unlikely such efforts would ever be carried out in Sri Lanka.

Officially the Republic of the Philippines, an archipelagic country in Southeast Asia, situated in the western Pacific Ocean, consists of about 7,641 islands that are categorised broadly under three main geographical divisions from north to south: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.

Bounded by the South China Sea on the west, the Philippine Sea on the east and the Celebes Sea on the southwest, Philippines shares maritime borders with Taiwan to the North, Vietnam to the West, Palau to the East and Malaysia and Indonesia to the South.

It’s the world›s 34th largest economy by nominal GDP according to the 2018 estimate of the International Monetary Fund’s statistics. The 13th largest economy in Asia. The Philippines is one of the emerging markets and is the fifth richest in Southeast Asia by GDP. The Philippines is primarily considered a newly-industrialised country, which has an economy transitioning from one based on agriculture to one based more on services and manufacturing.

Sri Lanka can take many a leaf from the Philippines. Despite corruption the Philippines has made major inroads on the economic front. Sri Lanka as a nation is yet to achieve true and reputable political representation for its hard-working people.

Earlier we had the disfavour of being a country plagued with terrorism; now it’s chronic, fortified corruption. A notable yet dubious gift of the Sri Lankan political fraternity is their ability to speak with fervour and supposed piety, yet achieve sweet nothing. Its political landscape is filled with a zillion able speakers and not many doers. You make a random change of TV channels in the evening and you’ll know what I am talking about. This is a startling malaise. A valid reason according to pundits why we haven’t realised our full potential.

Numbers are consistent with the entrenched ethos of splits and formations of new political parties and coalitions, an irrepressible political phenomenon. We have more political parties and less political engagement. We have more ministers and less rational demarcation of ministries. A dysfunctional and wasteful democracy.

Budding politicians of various hues aimlessly trying to woo the voter yet visibly impatient and ill-prepared.  The typical rhetoric that comes out in their hilarious TV debates aims at two distinct trajectories, in support of the hybrid genre of survival politics and to the primordial absurdist theatre. Nations certainly weren’t built this way and they never will.

It’s nuanced political melodrama in the absence of power or to grab it. Precious executive hours dissipated and drained as an effort of smart deflection. This is how a typical day moves in Sri Lanka, even in the country’s Legislature. Exponents of the craft just keep multiplying. This is what has taken centre stage especially in the last decade and is the cynosure of all eyes.

People too have got an insatiable diet for drama. Strange ventriloquists have emerged in the last couple of decades to generate entertainment for the people. Those that speak from the depth of their throats, those who can combine and synthesise their nasal organs.  Also the rare and unique breed that can expand and contract their cheek bones with amazing regularity. Quite a menagerie out there for diversion and merriment.  With mild intoxicants by the side it’s a good pastime for the politically active.

We had derogatory words for Korea, but lost the economic war to them a long time ago. We had a pipe dream of becoming a Singapore, not exactly knowing or understanding the kind of people they were and the kind of metal their politicians were made of. Please someone don’t tell me that Singapore is an authoritarian regime. Its people did not ask for an overdose of democracy. They wanted prosperity, dignity, subjugation of corruption and the rule of law. They got more than what they asked for.

We continued our desire to be like Malaysia, at least a Vietnam. All of these countries marched forward with a vision and are top international players as figures in the tabulation demonstrate. This includes the Philippines. We are still struggling to come up with a constitution acceptable for all. Also parochial politics and politicians stir passions to keep the supposed competition in demography, numbers of places of worship and many more diversions that essentially impedes and contributes towards instability.

As a people Sri Lankans were ready, they were ready a long time ago but the political leadership failed and faltered and continues to do so.

Resolution for the appointment of Constitutional Assembly

By Neville Ladduwahetty-January 24, 2019, 12:00 pm 

On March 9th, 2016, the Parliament of Sri Lanka resolved that:

"There shall be a Committee of Parliament referred to as the Constitutional Assembly which shall consist of all Members of Parliament, for the purpose of deliberating and seeking voices and the advice of the People on a new Constitution for Sri Lanka, and preparing a draft of a Constitution Bill for the consideration of Parliament in the exercise of its powers under Article 75 of the Constitution".

The present version of the Resolution, having followed several revisions and amendments to the above, reads as follows:

"Parliament resolved to set up a Committee of the whole Parliament for the purpose of preparing a draft of a Constitution Bill for the consideration of Parliament under provisions of Article 75 of the Constitution."

Paragraph 5 (a) of the March 2016 resolution states:

"A Steering Committee consisting of the Prime Minister (Chairman), Leader of the House of Parliament, Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Justice and not more than seventeen (17) Members of the Constitutional Assembly to be appointed by the Constitutional Assembly".

The present version of the Resolution, in referring to the Steering Committee, is as follows:

"A Steering Committee consisting of twenty-one Members of Parliament appointed by the Constitutional Assembly …one of whom shall be the Chairman…shall be responsible for the business of the Constitution Assembly and for preparing a Draft of a Constitution for Sri Lanka".

The Constitutional Assembly also appointed six Sub-Committees each with not more than eleven Members of Parliament including the Chairman as supporting bodies to the Steering Committee in May 2016.

The fields covered by the six Sub-Committees are: Fundamental Rights; The Judiciary; Law and Order; Public Finance; Public Service; Center Periphery Relations.

The Sub-Committees were mandated to develop constitutional principles for consideration of the Steering Committee in respect of the designated subject areas. Special regard was to be given by the Sub-Committees to the views of the public received through the Public Representative Committee.

Paragraph 7 of the March 2016 Resolution, in appointing the Constitutional Assembly stated:

"The Prime Minister shall at the first meeting of the Constitutional Assembly present a Resolution for adopting by the Constitutional Assembly calling upon the Steering Committee to present a Resolution proposing a Draft Constitution for the consideration of the Constitution Assembly, prior to the submission to the Cabinet of Ministers and Parliament".

Paragraph 9 stated: "The Steering Committee may seek the services of any institution which services are necessary for carrying out the objects of the Constitutional Assembly or any Committee thereof".

Paragraph 10 stated: "The Steering Committee may appoint other experts to aid and advise the Constitutional Assembly and/or its various Sub-Committees".

Paragraph 17 stated: "Upon the consideration of the Reports of the Sub-Committees…and the report of the Public Representative Committee, the Steering Committee shall submit a Report to the Constitutional Assembly. Such Report may be accompanied by a Draft Constitution".

The wording in the commitment undertaken above is nearly identical to the wording in Paragraph 16 of the revised version of the Resolution.

However, the March 2016 Resolution contained thirty-four (34) paragraphs, while. the revised version has twenty-three (23) paragraphs. Furthermore, the list of ex-officio members listed in the Mach Resolution have been deleted and paragraph 13 of the revised version states: "Unless suspended by Parliament, the Standing Orders of Parliament shall apply …subject to the provisions of this resolution". All of the above indicates the extent to which the March 2016 Resolution has been revised.

REPORT of the STEERING COMMITTEE

Despite the obligation of the Steering Committee to submit a Report and a Draft Constitution to Parliament for debate as required by the March 2016 Resolution as well as the revised version of the Resolution, the Chairman of the Steering Committee tabled some Sub-Committee Reports and a Report by the "Panel of Experts" containing 400 paragraphs with a proviso on every page that states "DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY". The cover page of the Report by the Panel of Experts further states:

"A report prepared by the Panel of Experts for the Steering Committee is based on the interim Report, six Sub-Committee Reports, the Report of the ad hoc Sub-Committee set up by the Steering Committee to look into the relationship between the Parliament and the Provincial Councils. The Chapters on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, Language Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy contained in the report are those proposed by the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights. Chapter on Citizenship is reproduced from the present Constitution".

THE STEERING COMMITTEE and its OPERATIONS

As required by the March 2016 Resolution, the Steering Committee is made up of the Prime Minister (Chairman), Leader of the House of Parliament, Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Justice and not more than seventeen (17) Members of the Constitutional Assembly appointed by the Constitutional Assembly. Apart from the four ex-officio members the remaining seventeen members were made up of two each from the Joint Opposition (JO), the Tamil National Alliance (TNA and Jathika Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) with the balance eleven being made up of Members of the "National Government" that functioned as the official government until October 26, 2018.

With time, the ex-officio members continued to be part of the Steering Committee, albeit not in their official capacity but as members of the Steering Committee with an elected Chairman.

The ten-member Expert Panel consists of one member each nominated by the JO, TNA and the JVP and other seven by the "National Government", which functioned until October 26, 2018.

In view of the fact that the "National Government" is now defunct and furthermore that the Opposition which was represented by the TNA is now replaced by the UPFA as the official Opposition, it must necessarily follow that the representation and the composition of the Steering Committee, the Sub-Committees and the Expert Panel has to change in a manner that is representative of the current formation in Parliament. Under these altered circumstances, the weighted representation in the Steering Committee and in the Panel of Experts, which existed has to be revised to represent the current formation in Parliament. This means that debating recommendations proposed or alternatives offered in respect of the relationship between the Parliament and the Provincial Councils in particular, in the report of the Panel of Experts, would not have any relevance since under current formations in Parliament the representation in the Steering Committee, the Sub-Committees and in the Expert panel would be more evenly balanced, thereby making the recommendations vastly different. This means that if the operations of the Constitutional Assembly are to have any legitimacy, current operations need to cease and the entire process has to be restarted with fresh formations and representations in the Steering Committee, the Sub-Committees and the Panel of Experts.

CONCLUSION

The process of transforming a Committee of the whole Parliament into a Constitutional Assembly was initiated for the express purpose of preparing a draft of a Constitutional Bill for the consideration of Parliament. Whether a fresh Constitution is needed or not is not the issue at this point in time. Instead, the issue is that the process was started during the formation of a "National Government". It was such a government that created a Steering Committee with six Sub-Committees and a Panel of Experts to guide and advise the Constitution making process. Consequently, the representation of the government in the Steering Committee, the Sub-Committees and in the Expert Panel was heavily skewed in favour of the government of the time. That "National government" ceased to exist on October 26, 2018. As a consequence, all the work undertaken by the Steering Committee, the six Sub-Committees and the Panel of Experts has no relevance in the context of the current "Minority government" in Parliament. Therefore, all efforts expended thus far should be abandoned and a fresh start initiated if the constitution making process is to go forward, starting with a re-formed Steering Committee together with any others to assist. Considering that there is only one year left for this, it would be foolhardy for the government to engage in such an exercise.

The "National Government" that initiated the constitution making process in March 2016, has been since October 26, 2018, replaced with a minority government that survives with the support of the TNA which at that time, i.e., 2016, was the recognized Opposition. Considering that previous attempts to introduce constitutions were undertaken by governments which secured either two-thirds or five-sixths majorities, for a minority government to even consider such an exercise is clearly morally indefensible and constitutionally wrong, without having had a mandate from the People.

He never came home

Jan 24, 2019

 

On this day nine years ago, a political cartoonist went to work in Colombo.

He never came home.

Prageeth Eknaligoda was an outspoken critic of the government of Sri Lanka. He worked tirelessly to expose the gross human rights violations committed against Tamil civilians during the civil war. It was his investigations into the government’s alleged use of chemical weapons against its own people that many have suggested was the reason for Prageeth’s abduction on 24th January 2010, as he travelled on the evening commute.

He is one of many media workers in Sri Lanka – including many lesser known Tamil journalists – to have been disappeared or killed during the armed conflict and its aftermath.

 

For nearly a decade, Prageeth’s wife, Sandhya, has fought unrelentingly to uncover the truth about what happened to her husband, and to bring to book those responsible for his disappearance. She has made countless court appearances, battled misinformation campaigns, and faced down appalling threats and intimidation from nationalist thugs. Yet despite her efforts, and the arrest of a number of suspects, Sri Lanka’s grindingly slow court system is yet to deliver justice.

To mark this day, we wanted to share with you a couple of powerful short video clips featuring Sandhya hosted on the citizen journalism website, Groundviews. We’d like to invite our supporters to demonstrate their solidarity with Sandhya – who is today speaking in Colombo – by sharing a link to these videos on social media along with a message of support, or one of the many striking cartoons by or in tribute to Prageeth. (Alternatively you can send us a note by email, and we will do our very best to pass it on).

n order to amplify your message, we suggest using the hashtag #WhereIsPrageeth. And you can ensure it is heard by those in power by ‘tagging’ in your posts Sri Lanka’s leaders, President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Those involved in Prageeth’s disappearance want the world to forget what happened nine years ago. Sandhya’s words are a reminder of why we must not let that happen:

“Justice is served when the perpetrators are punished. All those who were killed, disappeared, abducted, assaulted, whose limbs were broken during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime have not received justice. This Government, that came to power on these issues, has a responsibility to see that justice is served.”

Madu residents protest against lack of basic facilities

190123 Madu protest lack of basic facilities NE 1.jpg

Villagers from Madu Divisional Secretariat's area held a protest on January 23, condemning the authorities' failure to ensure basic facilities. 

24 January 2019

Blocking the main entrance of the Secretariat, protesters said that the issue of the lack of basic facilities had not been addressed for several years despite enumerous requests. 

"Roads have not been rebuilt. There are many issues such as the lack of street lights in many parts, the lack of transport services for civilians, the lack of medical facilities and even the lack of water," one protester told Tamil Guardian. 

Residents from 75 villages took part in the protest. 

Related Articles: 

15 March 2018 : Sri Lanka police agree to release Jaffna school's facilities following NPC pressure

19 January 2019 : Trinco village protests over lack of teachers

17 January 2019 : Vavuniya villagers protest against lack of permanent hospital doctor

Gota Must Lie And Will

By Suranimala Umagiliya –JANUARY 23, 2019

 Rajapaksa’s recent interview where he attempted to deflect his involvement with the murder of Lasantha Wickrematunge is but a futile attempt made to a supine journalist who never asked him any follow up questions. At one point Gotabaya states that he knows who murdered Lasantha and the late Editor’s daughter Ahimsa, who lives overseas must come to him in Sri Lanka to find out who murdered her father.

Every once in awhile Gotabaya wakes up to deflect charges against him when there is a gap in the Presidential stakes within the Pohottuwa Group or when a court case against him is set for hearing. This is rich coming from a man, who under oath in the Mt Lavinia Courts said that the MiG deal was a “Government to Government” sale and there were no commissioned agents. Gotabaya was the Chief Financial Officer and hence the ultimate responsibility lay with him where financial matters of the Defence establishment was concerned. Gotabaya lied under oath. Evidence unearthed and confirmed by the Ukrainian government proves that there was a large difference between the payment received by Ukraine and the amount paid by the Sri Lankan government. Therefore a huge commission was made by someone in between. Remember the Belimissa Holding (a dud Company) that was nominated to be the financier?. It is now evident that it was never a “government to government” deal. Mt Lavinia Court record will show that he gave evidence stating the MiG purchases were above board. He swore in Court…and LIED.Why should he even hesitate to lie about Lasantha’s murder?

The MiG file and the connected papers at Air Force Headquarters have gone missing. Any guesses as to who was behind? Futile effort as other copies were available.

There were several army intelligence officers who were posted to missions overseas at the recommendation of the Ministry of Defence when Gotabaya was Secretary of Defence. Some of them are now named as suspects into the murder of Lasantha Wickrematunge. The CID has obtained an order from the Magistrates Court to take charge of a clip from a TV station of a Gotabaya interview where he states that one reporter dares to roam around quite freely, driving his car after criticising the Secretary of Defence (him) which was an obvious reference to Lasantha Wickrematunge. The brave former Secretary of Defence might say the reference was not to Lasantha. That is how brave he is. Of course he cannot deny his infamous “who is Lasantha” quip. Read together these interviews show an in built and uncontrollable hatred towards Lasantha.

Time and again when the going gets hot Gotabaya announces his candidature to run for Presidency. He speaks of his freedoms and fundamental rights to give up his US citizenship without let or hinder from the US State Department. Did he not think that journalists in Sri Lanka had a right to LIFE without let or hinder from the Army Intelligence? Was that not their fundamental right? Right to life is more important than right to give up a citizenship.

Gotabaya thinks different. He rants during the interview that Lasantha’s daughter, first wife, second wife, brother and the Editors together with other journalists who took over the newspaper after the murder, are all overseas. He himself was at the time of the murder and YET a US citizen. Is he saying that they dare not come to Sri Lanka? Why? What would happen to them if they did? Explain Mr Gotabaya. Explain.

Read More

Parliamentary control of public finance

January 25, 2019, 12:00 pm 

Parliament has appointed opposition (JVP) MP Sunil Handunnetti as the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE). He was appointed the Chairman of the COPE, after August 2015 Parliamentary election deviating from the practice of appointing government Ministers as Chairmen of these Committees. MP Lasantha Alagiyawanna (UPFA), another opposition MP, is appointed the Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts (COPA). The Committees with oversight responsibility for financial discipline of government institutions are chaired by Opposition MPs, strengthens the Parliamentary control and oversight of Public Finance.

Parliament; the "Custodian of the public purse" exercises oversight in the financial performance in the Public Sector institutions. The Parliament is the sole authority to approve spending of people’s money and collection of taxes from the people. It cast upon the parliament the responsibility to scrutinize how the government Ministries, Departments and other government agencies spend money approved by the Parliament. The annual Budget and other finance bills presented to parliament for approval provides the opportunity to Parliamentary scrutiny of Public finance.

The annual Budget (Appropriation Bill) is presented to the parliament each year and the budget document contains information that outlines the policies underlying tax and spending proposals. The Budget debate provides the Members of Parliament the opportunity to exercise this most crucial function of the Parliament. The standing orders allow for not more than Twenty-six days for the consideration (debate) of the Appropriation Bill, of which not more than seven days and not more than twenty two days are allotted to the Second reading and the Committee stage discussions respectively. This provides approximately 200 hours of discussion and final approval of over 300 Heads of expenditure relating to government Ministries, Departments and other government Agencies.

The financial information is provided by the Treasury and Government Agencies. The MPs sometimes question the accuracy and the reliability of the information. The Parliament’s role demands Parliamentarians to take an active role in this process. It allows the Parliament to keep a check on government’s spending of public money and hold the government to account. Lack of access to accurate, reliable and in-depth budgetary information, time constrains and multitude of other constrains is a significant challenge to this crucial function of Public Finance Oversight and it has become less effective. In this challenging situation, scrutinizing, as supposed to do, with due diligence 300 Expenditure Heads is a daunting task and hardly ever the MPs could go into the fiscal implications of the proposals.

This is a sharp disconnect between the formal power and the actual budgetary role of the Parliament. Key reasons for this disconnect may be, apart from other constrains, is the limited knowledge and capacity of legislators to scrutinise fiscal matters; most Parliamentarians don’t possess the knowledge and skills to understand a complex budget and to analyse it. Research capacity in the legislature is almost non-existent. Budget related information remains the monopoly of the executive; the Treasury. The legislature depends on the information provided by the executive.

PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET OFFICE (PBO)

These challenges are addressed by taking measures to provide parliamentarians with institutional capacity to carry out their legislative and public finance oversight functions more actively and effectively. To that end, establishing PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET OFFICE (PBO) would strengthen the MPs’ role of carrying out financial oversight. The PBOs in OCED countries, many Asian, African and South American countries have been successful in their role.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) is an independent position similar to the Auditor General, reports to the Parliament. The Auditor General and the Parliamentary Committees; COPE and the COPA, all take a retrospective view of the public accounts and play an assurance role. The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s work is largely prospective in nature and in a decision support role for Parliament. The PBO provides un-biased, independent analysis on the state of the nation's finances and the government's estimates to the Parliament independent of the executive; the Treasury.

ROLE OF PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET OFFICE (PBO)

The PBO’s main functions would be Economic and Fiscal analysis and expenditure and revenue analysis and improve budget transparency. PBO will support Parliament in exercising its oversight role in the government’s stewardship of public funds and ensures budget transparency with an aim to implement sound economic and fiscal policies. PBO advices independently, objectively and is non-partition. PBO’s reports are made openly available to committees and Parliamentarians; and with the permission of the Parliament, to the public.

The PBO’s work involves financial analysis and broadly on fiscal policy, analyses programme costs and estimates and provide cost estimates on Parliamentary proposals. Upon request from a committee of the Parliament or any Parliamentarian (MP), estimates the financial cost of any proposal over which Parliament has jurisdiction. PBO provides distinct complementary service to support Parliament and Parliamentary Committees; especially financial expertise to COPE and COPA. It provides research and analytical support to individual MP’s and complies with their requests and works with Parliamentary committees.

The PBO plays an important role helping Legislators (MPs), and can significantly assist MPs in understanding the budget process, assists legislators to critically analyze program budgets, performance indicators and results (annual performance reports) to evaluate the Budget proposals, making the Budget to become more effective and meaningful.

ADVANTAGES OF PARLIAMENTARY

BUDGET OFFICE (PBO)

The Parliament, through the PBO is able to scrutinize the results of the approved spending. The Legislature is afforded increased opportunity to examine the effectiveness of government policies and programs and greater transparency and accountability of the Executive for the results of public spending. It leads the Executive to driving performance improvements in the public sector, including explanations for not achieving results and alert committee members to poor performance. The issues raised in PBO’s reports would have a substantive impact on the country’s economy. It would contribute to improvement in financial decisions and improved value for money in public services. Control wastage and extravagant expenditure in Public Sector Institutions.

The PBO strengthens and reassert MPs role as more active players in budget process and raises the quality of debate. Improve government transparency and accountability and brings financial accountability on public spending. PBO in the Parliament is a measure to strengthen the role of parliament in budgetary governance and to enhance the credibility of the whole budgetary process.

RAJA WICKRAMASINGHE

Investigating corruption of the Yahapalana Government

 It was during the time Sarath Nanda Silva served as the Chief Justice that the deterioration of the Judiciary commenced and was plunged into such an ugly and disgraceful level. Prior to that, notwithstanding some isolated drawbacks, the judicial service in Sri Lanka, on the whole, had maintained a good image of being an independent and credible institution enjoying a high degree of public respect – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

 Friday, 25 January 2019

Investigating into corruption alleged to have taken place during the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime was considered the most important responsibility of the Yahapalana Government during its initial years.

However, following the cessation of the political alliance between the President and the Prime Minister, President Maithripala Sirisena has appointed a Presidential Commission of Inquiry to investigate into allegations of corruptions and malpractices of the Yahapalana Government that had taken place from 15 January 2015 to 31 December 2018.

The large-scale corruption at State level did not begin in the Rajapaksa regime. Its origin goes back to 1977 when there was a UNP Government in power. Thereafter corruption became a “permanent feature” in State rule. However, the regime of Mahinda Rajapaksa can be considered a period in which the bribery and corruption reached a maximum height.

During the second phase of the Rajapaksa regime corruption became a thing done in the open while it is now being done secretly under the Yahapalana Government. This can be considered the only difference that exists between the two regimes i.e. Rajapaksa regime and the Yahapalana Government as regards corruption.

Plundering public property can be considered a permanent feature of State rule since 1977. Despite having numerous institutions maintained by public money to prevent bribery and corruption, during the long period of past 42 years since 1977, Sri Lanka has not been able to bring to book and impose punishment to a single politician associated with State rule, which can be considered the main source of corruption. This explains the extent of inefficiency and the failure of the institutional system maintained in Sri Lanka to prevent bribery and corruption.

In March 1986, during the rule of President J.R. Jayewardene, a Presidential Commission of Inquiry chaired by Percy Colin-Thom, a Supreme Court Judge, was appointed to investigate into the allegations of corruption against ministers, MPs and high-ranking public officers of the Government. Complaints poured into the commission. There were complaints against a number of Government ministers as well.

Eighteen months after the appointment of the commission and while it had not yet concluded its activities, the President dissolved it suddenly without assigning any reason. By the time the commission was dissolved in 1987, it had received 1,973 complaints and of which only 634 complaints had been investigated into.

The current Presidential Commission of Inquiry appointed by President Maithripala Sirisena can be considered the second Presidential Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate into allegations of corruptions and malpractices of a government while it is in power.


Deterioration of Judiciary 
The Head of the Presidential Commission appointed by President J.R. Jayewardene was a Supreme Court Judge while that of the commission appointed by President Sirisena happens to be a retired Supreme Court Judge. His name is Upali Abeyratna. He is not a person with a good reputation in the history of judicial service in Sri Lanka. His administration of justice had been tinged in disrepute.

In 2002, I authored and published a book in Sinhala, titled ‘Nonimi Aragalaya’. The English version of it was published in 2003 under the title ‘Unfinished Struggle’. It was written to highlight and expose the character of Sarath Nanda Silva who had been the Attorney General one time and later the Chief Justice of the country in particular and about the judicial service in general during his tenure as the Chief Justice. The book was published at a time when he was the serving Chief Justice. Interestingly, Upali Abeyratna, the Chairman of the Presidential Commission appointed by the President to investigate into corruption, is also an important character depicted in this book.

As I remember, it was during the time Sarath Nanda Silva served as the Chief Justice that the deterioration of the Judiciary commenced and was plunged into such an ugly and disgraceful level. Prior to that, notwithstanding some isolated drawbacks, the judicial service in Sri Lanka, on the whole, had maintained a good image of being an independent and credible institution enjoying a high degree of public respect. Though J.R. Jayewardene can be considered a very strong and powerful President, even during his rule, the Judiciary did not subject itself to undue influence by the Executive.

Sarath Nanda Silva did not stop at making the Judiciary an instrument of the Executive. Even in a moral sense, the Judiciary was turned into an ugly institution during his administration. It can be said that Sarath Nanda Silva had been a close confidant of President Chandrika Bandaranaike, during the early years of her regime.

The President perceived the independence maintained by the Judiciary as an anti-Government trend. Unlike the other Presidents, she could not act arbitrarily introducing amendments to the Constitution as she did not command a two-thirds majority in the Parliament. In the circumstance, she wanted to make the Judiciary an instrument of the Executive so that she could pursue her agenda without hindrance. It was with that objective in mind that she made Sarath Nanda Silva the Chief Justice, disregarding the law.

There was no provision in the Constitution for Members of the Parliament to change their original party in which they were elected without losing their seats in Parliament. In this backdrop, Sarath Nanda Silva came to her rescue, passing a judgment making it legally permissible for MPs to cross the floor to join the Government without losing their parliamentary seats. In doing so, Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva not only violated the Constitution of the country but also made the entire system of governance a chaotic mess. It was as an outcome of this judgment that the nefarious system in which the MPs could cross over to support the Government or vice versa demanding exorbitant fees came into being.

The manner in which Sarath Nanda Silva was appointed to the position of Chief Justice by President Chandrika Bandaranaike was both ugly and contrary to the law. There had been two investigations initiated and being pursued by the Supreme Court against Sarath Nanda Silva, based on two complaints on corruption charges made by me and a Chemical Engineer named Jayasekara at the time he was appointed the Chief Justice of the country.

My complaint was against the Magistrate Lenin Ratnayaka while that of the Chemical Engineer Jayasekara was concerned with the District Judge Upali Abeyratna. Both of them were found guilty of the charges by two committees of inquiry comprised of the judges of the Court of Appeal appointed by the Judicial Service Commission. So, it looked easier for proving the corruption cases against the Attorney General.

Consequently, Sarath Nanda Silva, the Attorney General, found himself gripped in a strangulated condition with no escape from the predicament. Under the circumstance, the President’s intention was to rescue her confidante from this predicament by making him the Chief Justice and in return to make the Judiciary an instrument that she could manipulate at her discretion.

Sarath Nanda Silva’s appointment to the post of Chief Justice evoked widespread protest. No sooner the President made this appointment, Param Kumaraswamy, the Special Rapporteur dealing with the matters of judiciary and law, of the United Nations Organisation (UNO), expressed his protest and condemned the appointment. He asserted that the appointment of a person against whom an investigation was being held by the Supreme Court on corruption charges to the position of Chief Justice was contrary to the accepted law and the long-held traditions.

I expressed my protest by publishing the picture depicting the swearing-in of Sarath Nanda Silva as the new Chief Justice in the presence of the President Chandrika Bandaranaike upside down against a black background, with the text of the report printed in reverse white in the front page of the Ravaya Newspaper of which I was the Chief Editor. Perhaps, this must have been the first occasion in the history of newspapers that a controversial event had been reported in this fashion.


District Judge Upali Abeyratna 
I was compelled to enter into a continuing row with Sarath Nanda Silva when he, as the Attorney General, had adamantly chosen to adopt a rigid policy of defending a fraudulent and rapist Magistrate called Lenin Ratnayaka whose true nature had been exposed by me with evidence proving that he is not the type of person to be tolerated in the judicial service. But, Sarath Nanda Silva was obdurate in safeguarding this person disregarding the findings of the inquiry, the report of which he had in his possession.

Magistrate Lenin Ratnayaka, prior to joining the judicial service, had worked in Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation. After a formal inquiry, he had been dismissed from service over a deliberate financial fraud of cheating a third party. Later, he had joined the judicial service by hiding this fact.

Sarath Nanda Silva, the Attorney General, came to the rescue of this person when he had adequate evidence to realise that he was a person who had been dismissed from his previous employment over a fraudulent transaction. I complained about this matter to Professor G.L. Peiris, the then Minister of Justice. In response to a written request made to the Attorney General by the Minister of Justice to report on this matter, the former had sent a secret report to the Minister hiding the true facts and defending this fraudulent and rapist Magistrate.

After reading this secret report, the impression created in me about Sarath Nanda Silva, the Attorney General, was that he too was a corrupt person. I wanted to find out more evidence to justify my opinion on Sarath Nanda Silva. It was as a result of this endeavour for searching for evidence that I came across the story of the District Judge Upali Abeyratna and his close connection with Sarath Nanda Silva.

Sarath Nanda Silva while serving as a Judge of the Court of Appeal had an illicit affair with a wife of a close friend of his. He lived with this woman in his own house while he had not legally separated from his wife. The husband of this woman, a Chemical Engineer, tried to settle this matter amicably before it ripened further, but in vain. Ultimately, he filed a case in the District Court, Colombo, making his wife and Sarath Nanda Silva co-respondents of the case.

The Chemical Engineer sought the approval of the Court to dissolve his marriage on account of the licentious conduct of his wife with Sarath Nanda Silva and to issue an order to the respondents to pay him Rs. 5 million to compensate the damage caused to him by ruining his family life.

Upali Abeyratna was the District Judge who heard this case. The District Judge dismissed the case without even informing the complainant about it. The Chemical Engineer, being unaware of what had happened to his complaint, after some time submitted a fresh complaint making his wife and Sarath Nanda Silva co-respondents.

On that occasion too, this same Judge without even making any reference to the complainant ordered that the name of Sarath Nanda Silva be removed from the list of respondents and to issue summons only to the wife of Jayasekara, the Chemical Engineer. The District Judge Upali Abeyratna even went to the extent of blocking the opportunity of the complainant receiving a copy of his order within 14 days, preventing him making an appeal against the order.

At the next hearing of the case, the District Judge inquired from the complainant about the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement to resolve the dispute. By then, a special application had been submitted to the Judiciary by the respondent to recover the cost of the case from the plaintiff. The District Judge, ordered the Engineer to make a monthly payment of Rs. 10,000 as maintenance and a sum of Rs. 50,000 being the cost of legal prosecution to the woman who had been carrying on a licentious relationship with Sarath Nanda Silva who was the Chairman of the Court of Appeal.

It was contrary to the Maintenance Act to issue an order to pay the cost of the case to an accused who had committed matrimonial misconduct by having a licentious affair with a third party. This can be considered a new record that this District Judge had created in the history of divorce cases in Sri Lanka.

The Counsel appeared for the Chemical Engineer, the plaintiff made an appeal against the order for payment of maintenance and the cost of legal prosecution to the accused. On the day of the hearing of the appeal, the Judge ignored the request and allowed respondent to divorce from her husband and ordered the Chemical Engineer, the Plaintiff, to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to her as the cost of legal prosecution.

By this time, the Chemical Engineer had filed two Appeals before the Court of Appeal against the two judgments given by the District Judge. The lawyers who appeared for the respondent warned the Engineer that they would obtain a Court order to acquire his properties to recover the compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs ordered by the Court unless he was prepared to withdraw the two petitions. Unable to resist the pressure and the humiliation that may be caused by the acquisition of the house in which he lived with his two children, the Engineer ultimately withdrew the two petitions filed by him.


Sweeping the investigation report under the carpet 
Later, when he regained his proper sense, the Chemical Engineer made a complaint to the Judicial Service Commission which comprised of Chief Justice G.P.S. de Silva and two Judges, namely Justice Mark Fernando and Justice Tissa Bandaranayke. As Jayasekara happened to be known to the Chief Justice personally, he withdrew himself from the committee of inquiry and entrusted Justice Mark Fernando and Tissa Bandaranayke to proceed with it.

These two Judges sent a copy of the complaint of Jayasekara to Upali Abeyratna and obtained his observations on it, in writing. Later, he was summoned before the Commission, questioned at length and subsequently issued a severe charge sheet asking him to show cause in writing as to why he should not be dismissed from the judicial service and/ or imposing any other punishment within a month.

This charge sheet was issued to District Judge Upali Abeyratna on 12 February 1996; 12 March 1996 can be considered the last date for submitting the written reply. It was on 12 March 1996 that Sarath Nanda Silva was appointed to the Supreme Court. Being a strong supporter of the President Chandrika Bandaranaike, he was appointed as the Attorney General.

In the meantime, Justice Tissa Bandaranayke went on retirement. Thereafter, Justice Mark Fernando was removed from the Judicial Service Commission, creating a situation which provided ample space for the Attorney General to manipulate the activities of the Judicial Service Commission informally by himself. By then, not only had District Judge Upali Abeyratna abstained from replying his charge sheet, but the enforcement of law against him had also been suppressed.

Thereafter, I was compelled to turn my struggle and the clamouring against Magistrate Lenin Rathnayaka towards District Judge Upali Abeyratna and Attorney General Sarath Nanda Silva.

As I persisted with my struggle, making a big noise, Romesh de Silva, the then President of Lawyers’ Association, was compelled to convene a discussion of the former Presidents of the Lawyers’ Association to recommend what sort of a policy should be adopted in regard to the allegations I had levelled against Magistrate Lenin Rathnayaka, District Judge Upali Abeyratna and Attorney General Sarath Nanda Silva.

The copies of the articles published by me from time to time about these three persons had also been attached to the letter sent by the Lawyers’ Association for convening the meeting. The discussion of the former Presidents of the Lawyers’ Association was held at the residence of H.L. de Silva who can be considered the most senior and eminent person among them.

The decisions arrived at this meeting were as follows. The Judicial Service Commission should conduct an inquiry regarding the allegations made by me against the Magistrate Lenin Rathnayaka and District Judge Upali Abeyratna. If the charges levelled against them were not proved, legal action should be instituted against the Editor of Ravaya. If, however, the charges were proved, then an investigation must be held to inquire into the allegations made against the Attorney General also.

At the end, the Judicial Service Commission appointed two tripartite investigating committees comprising the judges of the Appeal Court. The Investigating Committee inquiry into the case against Lenin Rathnayaka found him guilty for joining the judicial service without disclosing his dismissal from the service of the Insurance Corporation and raping two women whose court cases were being heard by him.

The committee recommended that Lenin Rathnayaka should be dismissed from the judicial service and file two separate cases against him, one for joining the Judiciary hiding his dismissal from the Insurance Corporation on a financial fraud and the other for the raping two women.

This investigating committee comprised Appeal Court Judges viz. Hector Yapa, Asoka de Silva and T.B. Weerasooriya. Similarly, the investigating committee appointed to investigate into allegations against the District Judge Upali Abeyratna found him guilty for the charges levelled against him. The committee recommend that he too should be removed from the judicial service.

On 31 July 1999, the Judicial Service Commission sent Upali Abeyratna on compulsory retirement. But, it can be clearly seen that the Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva had adopted a rigid policy of defending District Judge Upali Abeyratna who had looked after his interests in rescuing him from the charges levelled against him. Later, the Judicial Service Commission, deviating from their original recommendation to send him on retirement adopted a policy of mitigating the punishment. Accordingly, his promotion to the special grade was suspended for two years effective from 19 February 1999 and transferred him to Monaragala Courts as a punishment.

Thereafter, before the term of punishment was over, he was promoted to the High Court. Before Sarath Nanda Silva retired from the post of Chief Justice, Upali Abeyratna obtained an appointment in the Appeal Court. Eventually, he was able to get an appointment in the Supreme Court. After his retirement from the Supreme Court, it can be said that he had been lucky enough to become a Chairman of a Presidential Commission appointed for investigating into corruption.

The way he had acted in regard to the case against Sarath Nanda Silva was not only contrary to the law but also extremely corrupt and exceedingly vicious. In this case, it is obvious that District Judge Upali Abeyratna had acted on the dictates of Sarath Nanda Silva.

It cannot be considered a good thing to appoint a dishonest and unscrupulous person who had implicated himself in such a serious fraudulent act and corrupt practice concerning a judicial matter, as the Chairman of a Presidential Commission of Inquiry to investigate into allegations of corruptions and malpractices.