Connect with us

Features

Supreme Court on 22A: Serious errors

Published

on

Part I: Removal of the PM

By Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne,
President’s Counsel

The Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution Bill (22A) was showcased by the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa Government as a restoration of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution (19A) of 2015. Most 19A provisions were removed by the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution. Many, including the writer, have pointed out that not all the provisions of 19A are sought to be introduced by 22A. The 22A Bill was challenged in the Supreme Court, mostly by Sinhala nationalist groups, who consider the Presidential form of government to be one assurance of majoritarian dominance.

The abolition of the ‘Executive Presidency’ was one of the significant demands of the Aragalaya, while going back to 19A was called for as an immediate measure. Over the last year or so, support for the abolition of the Executive Presidency has seen a marked increase. A survey conducted by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) in April 2022 revealed that 74% of the respondents wished for the complete abolition of the Executive Presidency, compared to 50.3% in October-November 2021. It is of interest that the figure among the Sinhalese, who wish for abolition (74.2%) was higher than the national percentage, clearly indicating that Sinhala nationalism is on the retreat.

The Supreme Court (Jayasuriya CJ, Aluwihare J and Obeysekere J) has determined that several key provisions of 22A require the approval of the people, at a referendum, in addition to a two-thirds majority, in Parliament. They are as follows: the President should not have the power to dismiss the Prime Minister; Ministers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister; and that if the President does not make appointments to the independent Commissions, as recommended by the Constitutional Council, within 14 days, the appointments would be deemed to have been made. These three provisions were part of the Constitution, under 19A. The Supreme Court, in 2015, did not consider that they would require approval, by the people, at a referendum. There is thus a clear shift in the thinking of the current Supreme Court. The government has said that a referendum will be avoided by amending the Bill at the committee stage in Parliament. Thus, the President would only be required to consult the Prime Minister in appointing Ministers. The President can dismiss a Prime Minister even when the latter has a clear majority in Parliament. Premier Dinesh Gunawardena, beware!

Appointment and removal of PM

To the writer, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of appointing Ministers did not come as a surprise, given the reasoning of the Court (Jayasuriya CJ, Janak De Silva J and Obeysekere J) in its determination of the Samagi Jana Balavegaya’s Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution Bill (21A), holding that the abolition of the Executive Presidency required people’s approval, at a referendum. The writer disagrees with that determination, which will be the subject of a forthcoming paper. But the determination in the 22A case that the President’s power to dismiss a Prime Minister, who commands the confidence of Parliament, is an essential part of executive power, did come as a surprise.

The Nineteenth Amendment took away the power of the President under previous Article 47(a) to remove the Prime Minister. The removal of the Prime Minister thus became a power of Parliament. New Article 48(2) provided that if Parliament rejects the statement of government policy, or the Appropriation Bill, or passes a vote of no-confidence in the government, the Cabinet of Ministers shall stand dissolved. The President could then appoint a new Prime Minister.

The 20A Bill sought to empower the President to remove the Prime Minister. The proposed provision was challenged. A five-member Bench of the Supreme Court, however, held that in view of the fact that the President, who holds the People’s executive power in trust for the People, is the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers and the appointing authority of the Prime Minister, empowering the President to remove the Prime Minister and appoint a new Prime Minister who, in his opinion, commands the confidence of Parliament, does not infringe the sovereignty of the People. The Court did not explicitly state that such a power of removal is an essential part of executive power but seems to have gone on the basis that the appointing authority also has the power of removal.

In the 22A case, the Attorney-General submitted that the removal of the Prime Minister should arise only where the Prime Minister ceases or fails to command the confidence of Parliament and that in such an instance, it is more appropriate for Parliament to move a motion of no-confidence against the Prime Minister. He submitted further that the President, acting on his own accord in removing the Prime Minister, where he is of the opinion that the Prime Minister no longer commands the confidence of Parliament, would amount to an arbitrary exercise of power. The Court’s response was that currently, that is under 20A, the President has the power to remove the Prime Minister. The circumstances in which the Prime Minister may be removed will not be limited to a situation where the Prime Minister no longer commands the confidence of Parliament. The Court took the view that taking away that right affects the balance of power that currently exists and amounts to a relinquishment and erosion of the executive powers of the President, impinging upon the sovereignty of the People.

It is respectfully submitted that the learned Judges were in error in both the 20A and 22A cases. Both 19A and 20A had a similar provision, relating to the appointment of the Prime Minister: ‘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 word ‘most’, which makes all the difference, escaped the attention of the learned Judges in the 20A case, who assumed the wording to be ‘who in the President’s opinion, is likely to command the confidence of Parliament’. It is clear that the President has no discretion in the matter of appointing a Prime Minister. He must necessarily appoint ‘the Member of Parliament’ who, in his opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament. The Sinhala version of Article 42(4) is even more clear, using the phrase ‘vishvaasaya uparima vashayen athi’ (‘utmost confidence’).

Thus, there can be only one Member of Parliament, who fits the constitutional requirement. That Member has a right to be appointed as the Prime Minister. To use equal protection phraseology, the office of the Prime Minister is a single-person class, a class which consists of one person. It follows that a ‘new Prime Minister’ cannot be the Member of Parliament who commands the ‘utmost confidence’ of Parliament, that Member of Parliament having been removed. It is submitted that to empower an authority to remove the one person who is entitled to be in a single-person class is arbitrary.

Public Trust Doctrine

Our courts have, on countless occasions, reiterated the application of the public trust doctrine to the exercise of power. In Re Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution 2002, a seven-member Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated that the doctrine applies to powers of check attributed to one organ of government in relation to another: ‘The power that constitutes a check, attributed to one organ of government in relation to another, has to be seen at all times and exercised, where necessary, in trust for the People. This is not a novel concept. The basic premise of Public Law is that power is held in trust.’

It thus follows that the power to dismiss a Prime Minister at will when Parliament is functioning properly and the Prime Minister commands the confidence of Parliament is an obvious violation of the doctrine. 22A sought to remedy this situation, as 19A did, by taking away the power of the President to remove the Prime Minister.



Features

‘Lord Edgware Dies’

Published

on

It has been some time since I read an Agatha Christie, the plot of which I cannot remember. So, I was delighted to find on the shelves of a friend Lord Edgware Dies, which I had a vague memory of, but no certainty about who had done it.

When I read it, I found that my memory of who was probably the killer was correct, but I could not be certain and the red herrings Christie threw in were so diverting that until almost the very end I wondered if I had been wrong.

The plot is very simple. Jane Wilkinson, who is married to Lord Edgware, tells him that she is desperate for a divorce since she is in love with a very proper Anglo-Catholic peer, Lord Melton, but Edgware refuses to divorce her. She asks Poirot to talk to him, which he does, and is surprised to find that Edgware has told Jane he is prepared to give her a divorce. This was, after he had categorically refused, through a letter, which Jane said she had not received.

That night Edgware is murdered, after Jane had been to see him, or so the butler said, and also Edgware’s secretary. But Jane had been that evening at a grand dinner many miles away, where a dozen fellow guests could swear to her presence.

There was a solution however to the mystery of two Jane Wilkinsons, namely a skilful impersonator called Carlotta Adams who, in the opening chapter had impersonated Jane Wilkinson, who had also been at the performance. But when Poirot goes to see her, he finds that she had been found dead on the morning after Edgware had been killed, of an overdose. And in her bag was a gold case, with a strange inscription, that contained the drug, along with a pair of pince-nez.

Her maid said she had written a letter to her sister in America and posted it the previous night. Poirot asks Inspector Japp to get the letter, and a transcript is received from America, and in it the name of Edgware’s nephew Ronald Marsh is mentioned; he had taken Carlotta to dinner after her performance, with which the book opens, and had then set her a challenge. Japp arrests Marsh, but Poirot is not happy and asks for the original of the letter, which the sister sends him. That shows that a page is missing, and the tear is obvious, though that raises the question as to why it had not simply been cut.

Matters are further complicated by the fact that Marsh had gone in a taxi to the Edgware house, along with Edgware’s daughter Geraldine, in the interval of an opera which had previously seemed to provide them with cast iron alibis. Geraldine had gone in to fetch her pearls so that Marsh could raise money he needed, and thus had an opportunity to kill Edgware, as did Marsh, for the driver said he had got out of the taxi while waiting and gone into the house.

Agatha Christie

Marsh explained why he had gone to the house on the night of the murder as having followed Bryan Martin, an American actor, who had been in love with Jane, whom he saw go into the house with a key. But there was no one visible when he entered, and Geraldine almost immediately came down and they left together. And Martin too has become an object of suspicion to Poirot, for he had been to see him before the murders were discovered with a story of being followed by a man with a gold tooth – a story Poirot immediately realized was false when he was asked how old the man was, and was told he was young, for young people did not have gold teeth.

A heap of French money Edgware had got for a trip to Paris was missing, but since Marsh had no need for it after his cousin’s offer of help, Poirot deduces that it must have been taken by the butler, who has disappeared. Christie has stressed that he is astonishingly handsome, unusual in a butler, and Poirot notes a resemblance to Martin, so he thinks the mysterious man going into the house must have been him.

Incidentally, later Poirot assumes that Edgware’s change of mind was because he was involved in some scandal, and I believe Christie intends us to see the cause of this in his handsome butler, though this is not specified.

Meanwhile, Poirot has asked Japp to find out the provenance of the case found in Carlotta’s handbag, and it turns out to have been made in Paris, specially commissioned, and collected by a woman with pince-nez.

But then another murder occurs—that of another guest at the grand dinner, which provided Jane with her alibi. The victim is an actor who had been bemused when Jane, at a lunch, thought the Judgment of Paris referred to the city. He told Hastings he wanted to see Poirot, but was killed before he could get to the appointment. Poirot had rushed there when told about his request, but it was too late.

Meanwhile, Poirot has tried out the pince-nez on Edgware’s secretary, but she could not see through these. It was only a chance remark heard outside the theatre that led him to try them out on Wilkinson’s maid Ellis, a spare pair that had been appropriated for the night of the murders.

Poirot then lays things out, having summoned Martin and told him that he probably suppressed Edgware’s letter, as he had been dropped by then and he did not want Jane to marry another. But after teasing Martin, Poirot says that Jane was in fact the murderer, and she got Carlotta to impersonate her at the dinner while she went to the house and killed her husband. After meeting Carlotta later and checking with her through a call that she had not been rumbled, Jane had gone ahead with the murder – she put veronal into her drink and the case with veronal into the handbag. She forgot to take out the pince-nez she had used earlier to imitate an American. Carlotta had registered as the American in a hotel and Jane had gone to see her, and there they exchanged identities. After seen the letter, she made use of it by tearing off the page that referred to her, and the S of She, so that the person who had challenged Carlotta to impersonate her seemed to be a man.

There is a coda in which Jane, condemned to death, writes to Hastings, still full of pride at her ingenuity hoping she will be remembered.

Continue Reading

Features

Desilt reservoirs, learn from our ancient irrigation systems

Published

on

Polgolla

by Prof. O. A. Ileperuma

Silting of reservoirs is a major problem today affecting our hydropower production and irrigation systems. The main Mahaweli reservoirs are silted to a considerable extent reducing the water holding capacity of them. Due to poor soil management practices, floodwaters deposit large amounts of silt in these reservoirs. When the Polgolla reservoir was fully drained about two years back, one could see mountains of silt in the lower reaches of the reservoir. A rough estimate is that 50% of the total capacity of these reservoirs has been lost to siltation. This is a serious issue which affects not only power and agriculture but also flood control.

Our ancient irrigation systems ensured that desilting of reservoirs took place under royal decree where all users of the reservoirs were ordered to carry out desilting of reservoirs during the dry season. The clay thus collected was used in making bricks for the construction of great stupas which dot the landscape of our ancient kingdoms. This ensured that the reservoirs had their full capacity filled with water for the next cultivating season. Our ancient kings were clever enough not to construct reservoirs by blocking main rivers such as the Mahaweli. A classic example is the Minipe left canal where they tapped only the surface water of Mahaweli. Even the bigger tanks such as Nuwara Wewa and Parakrama Samudraya were fed with minor rivulets. There were also other ingenious features in the cascade irrigation systems built by the ancient kings, such as mud sluice canals and forest reservations between the reservoirs in the cascade system. These reservations helped trap silt and remove excess nutrients, which could otherwise contribute to increasing salinity as water flowed from one reservoir to another.

Victoria

Moragahakanda

A classic engineering marvel is the former Yoda Ela, which carries water from Kalawewa to Nuwara Wewa and Tissa Wewa. It is 87 km long although the straight distance between these points is only about 40 km. The gradient of this canal is about 10 cm per km or 6 inches per mile. Yodha Ela functions as a moving reservoir and feeds about 4,600 hectares of paddy lands. It is a winding canal with about 120 smaller reservoirs on its way. It was constructed during the reign of King Dhatusena around 459 AD and later expanded by King Parakramabahu by connecting more reservoirs to the network. Unfortunately, during the Mahaweli project our modern-day engineers constructed a concrete canal replacing the winding path of this Yoda Ela also called Jaya Ganga. This effectively removed the ability of the old Yoda Ela to remove silt and nutrients. The bank of this Ela has wet zone trees such as jak and areca nut growing well. They take up the nutrients from the flowing stream making the water suitable for irrigation later.

Ancient Mesopotamian civilisations depended on dams constructed along the two main rivers, Euphrates and Tigris. After continuous irrigation of their fields over several thousand years, salinity of the irrigated lands increased making them unsuitable for agriculture. People died due to famine and this clearly illustrates the danger of blocking main rivers for agriculture. There is scientific evidence that the salinity of paddy soils in the Mahaweli C area is increasing.

We saw the devastation caused by Cyclone Ditwah. The sluice gates of the Kotmale Reservoir were opened, and Kandy and Peradeniya were flooded. If the reservoir had had greater storage capacity, couldn’t the opening of the gates have been delayed? This may not be an argument that modern-day engineers would readily accept, and I am not an irrigation expert. These ideas may well be naïve. But most of us tend to think of reservoirs mainly in terms of hydropower generation and irrigation, while their role in flood control receives much less attention. The question therefore deserves serious consideration. Could restoring lost reservoir capacity through desilting help improve our ability to manage extreme rainfall and reduce flood risks?

Desilting our reservoirs should be considered a national priority.

Continue Reading

Features

Losing out to Ethiopia

Published

on

From Trailblazer to Tailender

Export diversification – Missing the wood for the trees – Part III

by Gomi Senadhira

In Sri Lanka, the word “Ethiopia” is often used as disparaging slang to describe individuals or areas experiencing extreme poverty, starvation, or severe economic hardship. This linguistic habit originated in the 1980s with the Western media coverage of the devastating Ethiopian famine of 1983-85. That media coverage shocked the world but also left an outdated and offensive global stereotype that the country is permanently starving. Much has changed since then. By now, with an annual growth rate of around 9%, it is the fastest-growing economy in sub-Saharan Africa. Ethiopia has also emerged as a highly competitive exporter and is challenging not only its competitors in the region but also countries like Sri Lanka. This article is on how Sri Lanka has lost ground to Ethiopia (and a few other countries) in the GCC markets for agricultural and floricultural products.

Sri Lanka – A Pioneer in the Agriculture and Floricultural Market in the GCC

As discussed in Part II of this article, by the mid-1980s Sri Lanka had established a strong foothold in the GCC’s fruit, vegetable, and floricultural market. Geographical proximity and well-established shipping and air links gave Sri Lanka a strong comparative advantage over Southeast Asian and African nations. Thailand, Vietnam, and Kenya were not even in the market. At that time, Ethiopia was experiencing (as BBC news reports described) “a biblical famine”.

The market was not very large, but it was lucrative and growing. Trade Minister Lalith Athulathmudali as well as the Chairman of the Export Development Board, Victor Santiapillai, who visited Kuwait (and the GCC countries), recognised the market potential for these products and encouraged us to continue with our work. The minister was particularly keen to further develop links between the market for these products, exporters, and his Export Production Villages (EPVs). So, it was becoming a successful case not only for export diversification but also for transferring gains from exports directly to rural households.

From Trailblazer to Tailender

As a result, even by the beginning of this century Sri Lanka had a larger market share than most of its competitors from Asia or Africa. But since then, our competitiveness has weakened significantly. The tables below provide a comparative snapshot of Sri Lanka’s performance vis-à-vis Thailand, Vietnam, Kenya and Ethiopia in the GCC market for vegetables, fruits and floricultural products. As illustrated therein, in 2001 Sri Lanka was ahead of Thailand, Kenya and Ethiopia in this small but rapidly growing market. Since then, we have fallen behind Thailand, Kenya and many other countries in that lucrative market. If this trend continues, Sri Lanka will fall behind Ethiopia within the next few years. (See Table 1)

In the GCC market for vegetables (covered in HS chapter 07), Sri Lanka was ahead of most other competitors in 2001. As illustrated in Table 1 , Sri Lanka had failed to develop this market, while Thailand, Kenya, and even Ethiopia had very efficiently increased their market shares. The GCC is a market to which Sri Lanka can supply some vegetables, like cabbages, by sea. It appears Sri Lanka had also failed to exploit this mode of supply.

We can see a similar trend in the market for fruits. Vietnam, Kenya, and Thailand have emerged as major players, while exports from Sri Lanka have staggered on slowly. In this segment, Vietnam has emerged as a leading player during the last twenty years and the GCC imports from Viet Nam have shot up from US$44 thousand in 2001 to US$346 million by 2024. In part one of these articles, I discussed the remarkable increase of jackfruit exports from Vietnam “…just $3 million in 2015 to an impressive $236.8 million in 2023” while most of our jackfruit production rots under the trees. This explains how countries develop their markets, geographically and product-wise. (See Table 2)

Sri Lanka’s performance has been weakest in the market for floricultural products (HS Chapter 06), which groups live trees, cut flowers, and ornamental foliage. When we first entered the market in the 1980s, the market was dominated by the Netherlands, and Kenya and Ethiopia were not even in the market. At that time, we identified the Gulf states as a market where Sri Lanka could have a dominant presence due to geographical proximity. Even in 2001, Sri Lanka was ahead of Kenya, Ethiopia, and Thailand. But by now, Kenya has emerged as the dominant supplier. Ethiopia is also expanding its market share and is the third-largest exporter. (See Table 3)

Missing the Wood for the Trees

In the mid-1980s, Sri Lanka first established its foothold in the GCC market. Since then, Thailand, Vietnam, Kenya, and even Ethiopia have moved well ahead of us and have become leading players. Why did we lag behind in our export diversification efforts in general and, more particularly, in the GCC market?

The reasons are very clear. After the initial attempts in the 1980s and early 1990s, Sri Lanka has not been proactively involved in identifying, developing, and promoting new products and markets, or protecting and further developing new markets already established. The focus has simply been on traditional exports: tea, coconut, cinnamon, and garments, while other products were almost ignored. In essence, we have been and continue to focus intensely on a narrow group of products and markets, and we have lost sight of the bigger picture.

(The writer can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)

Continue Reading

Trending