Features

ABOLISHING THE EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY -IS TIME RUNNING OUT?

Published

3 years ago

2024/02/18

by Dr Nihal Jayawickrama

Earlier this week, the President’s Media Division issued a statement to the effect that the next presidential election will be held on schedule. What was the need for that statement? In terms of the Constitution, the President’s term of office ends not later than 18^th November 2024. As far as I am aware, no member of Parliament has given any indication that he or she intends to introduce a Bill to amend the Constitution to extend the term of office of the President, as required by article 83 of the Constitution. Such a Bill, if passed with a two-third majority, will also need to be approved by the people at a referendum. In the absence of any such move, what was the need for the President’s Media Division to assert the obvious. Was it to stifle the movement for restoring the parliamentary executive that now appears to be gathering wide public support?

The hypocrisy of politicians

The leader of the SLFP, Maithripala Sirisena, has publicly declared that he supports the abolition of the executive powers of the President. In 2019, the JVP’s Anura Kumara Dissanayake presented a Bill to enable the then non-executive President to be elected by Parliament. In 2021, SJB leader Sajith Premadasa proposed a constitutional amendment to enable a non-executive President to be elected by Parliament. None of these political leaders now show any inclination to implement their previous commitments. Instead. they have publicly announced their intention to seek election to the office of Executive President. The chief whip of the Opposition offers a hilarious half-way deal: first hold the presidential election; then abolish the office!

Lawyer-parliamentarian Udaya Gammanpila sees the call for abolishing the executive presidency as “part of a conspiracy to postpone the next presidential election”. He argues that since the Supreme Court has previously held that a parliamentary vote to remove the executive powers of the President should be followed by a referendum, “if a person challenges the validity of the referendum, the executive presidency will not be abolished pending the Supreme Court determination, and the incumbent President can remain in power until the dissolution of parliament in August 2025. He explains that the hearing of a petition could take six months or even longer.

The obligation of the President

The responsibility to give effect to what is now an increasingly vocal public demand surely rests with the Head of Government, the incumbent President. In 2013, the Ranil Wickremesinghe-led UNP published the text of the principles upon which a new Constitution would be formulated after it forms a government. Among them was that the executive presidency would be abolished. In 2018, the government of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe prepared and published a draft Constitution which required the President to be elected by Parliament and to exercise his/her powers on advice. It is surely the responsibility, if not the obligation, of President Ranil Wickremesinghe to set in motion the legal processes necessary to achieve that objective before time begins to run out.

Bill for the 22^nd Amendment to the Constitution

The first step should be to reform the electoral system. Since the list system of election to Parliament, based on proportional representation, is an integral element in the executive presidential system of governance, the Constitution will need to be amended to replace that system with the first past-the-post system of single and multi-member constituencies that prevailed under the 1946 and 1972 Constituencies. These will need to be supplemented with an element of proportional representation to ensure that minorities are adequately represented, and that there is equitable distribution of seats based on the totality of votes cast for each political party. Following the passage of this constitutional amendment by a two-third majority, the delimitation of electorates will need to commence immediately.

Bill for the 23^rd Amendment to the Constitution

The next step should be another constitutional amendment for the following purposes:

· Establish the office of President of the Republic who shall be the Head of State, the Head of the Executive, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

· Establish the offices of two Vice-Presidents who shall belong to two different ethnic groups, and neither of whom should belong to the ethnic group of the President.

· The President and Vice-Presidents shall be elected by Parliament. The term of office of the President and Vice-Presidents shall be four/six years.

· The President and Vice Presidents shall, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, act on the advice of the Prime Minister, or of such other Minister to whom the Prime Minister may have given authority to advise the President or a Vice-President on any function assigned to that Minister.

· Whenever the President is prevented by illness or other cause from performing the duties of his office or is absent from Sri Lanka a Vice-President designated by the Prime Minister shall act in the office of President.

A Bill for the above purposes will require to be passed with a two-thirds majority. The Constitution does not require such a Bill to be approved at a referendum. However, the Supreme Court has been inconsistent on this question. In 2015, Chief Justice Sripavan and two other Judges held that the 19^th Amendment (which required the President to act on the advice of the Prime Minister) was not required to be approved at a referendum, but different benches of Judges have since, in my view erroneously, held that approval at a referendum is required. Therefore, it is advisable for the government to state at the outset that it intends to submit the Bill to a referendum. This Bill, after being approved at a referendum, will come into force upon being certified by the President.

Dissolution of Parliament

The third and final step would be to dissolve Parliament, and fix dates for receiving nominations and for conducting the poll. The general election and the referendum could be held on the same day. If the President-in-office intends to be a candidate at the general election, he will need to resign his office upon issuing the proclamation dissolving Parliament. Since the incumbent Prime Minister may also be a candidate, the proposed Bill for the 23^rd Amendment will need to make provision for the incumbent President to nominate a suitable person who is not a member of any political party to serve as interim president, and for such interim president to hold office until Parliament, after the general election, elects the President.

A New Constitution

During a brief conversation on a flight to Colombo, four months after he had been elected by Parliament to the vacant office of President, Ranil Wickremesinghe mentioned to me that one of his priorities was to solve the ethnic problem. I had no reason to disbelieve him. In fact, I accepted, and still do accept, that he had set that as a priority for himself during his tenure in the highest office in our country. Unfortunately, his belief that the full implementation of the provisions in the Constitution introduced by the 13^th Amendment in 1987, during a bloody civil war, would achieve that objective is unfounded.

The strident response of the TNA spokesman Mr. Sumanthiran that nothing short of federalism will satisfy the Tamil population in the North and East, demonstrates the futility of seeking a solution based on that much maligned controversial constitutional amendment. Equally unfounded is his belief that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (which is based on the Christian concept of Confession) will be appropriate for our country.

If President Wickremesinghe’s objective is national reconciliation and reintegration, Sri Lanka needs a new Constitution with a strong democratic foundation and based on the recognition that Sri Lanka is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multi-linguistic country. The Constitution must also assert that Sri Lanka is a secular country, as Singapore does, in which everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and does not need the intervention of the State to exercise that right.

It is desirable that a new Constitution should also contain the following provisions:

· The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka will be restored to its original name “The Republic of Sri Lanka”.

· May 22^nd will be recognized as “Republic Day”, while February 4^th will continue to be recognized as “Independence Day”.

· Sinhala, Tamil, and English shall be the official languages, with English being the medium of instruction at the secondary and tertiary levels.

· The provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of which Sri Lanka has ratified, will be incorporated in the Constitution and be enforceable, including in respect of existing laws.

· A Constitutional Court will be established. Its jurisdiction will include the issuance of writs and the ex-post facto review of legislation. It may also serve as the court of final appeal in respect of important questions of law.

(f) A 30-member Senate will be established as the upper chamber of Parliament (perhaps consisting of representatives of professional organizations), with a 175/200-member House of Representatives as the lower chamber.

Conclusion

A new Constitution to replace the 21-times amended, author-unknown, and drafting- process-unknown, 1978 Constitution, is the real need of the hour. It will obviate the necessity to adopt the 22^nd and 23^rd Amendments referred to above. It will need a general election before it becomes fully operative, but it will not require a referendum to bring it into force. If the 1946 Constitution could have been drafted by a young assistant legal draftsman in three months, using a borrowed typewriter to work on; and if the 1972 Constitution could have been drafted in even less time, both at little or no expense to the State, there is no reason why a new Constitution for Sri Lanka cannot be drafted and adopted by Parliament before the Elections Commission begins the process of electing a new Executive President.

In this crucial election year, we need to ask ourselves why it is necessary to change the existing system. In answering that question, we must have regard not only to the manner in which this country has been governed during the past five decades, but also to the quality of governance in the world around us with which we must necessarily interact. We need to look ahead to the next 25 years and ask whether the constrictive framework of governance prescribed in the 1970s is appropriate or adequate to meet the challenges of the new millennium.

—————————————————–

Dr Nihal Jayawickrama, LL.B (Ceylon), Ph.D (London) is a former Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice, who also served briefly as Attorney-General. He taught Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Hong Kong, and at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada where he occupied the Ariel F. Sallows Chair of Human Rights. He is the author of The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law, (Cambridge University Press, 2002, 2^nd ed.2017, 1200 pp.).

All News Advertisement

Up Next

Dilmah and Sport: Making a tea and cricket connection and sponsoring Sri Lanka Cricket

Don't Miss

Israel’s Gaza Campaign Is the Gravest Moral Crisis of Our Time

Click to comment

Features

Coercive laws recipe for future misrule

Published

17 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Jehan Perera

The NPP government is going after powerful figures from the past and present who have engaged in corruption, fraud and criminal activity in a way that no previous government in Sri Lanka has done. Former ministers, politicians and senior state officials are among those facing investigations and legal proceedings. The government has placed before Parliament a document listing 50 cases involving corruption, fraud and other crimes. These include not only financial offences but also cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks, the killings of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.

The significance of this effort is that it can demonstrate that nobody is above the law, regardless of political connections or social standing, which will help restore public confidence in institutions that have long been distrusted. It could also recover public resources, improve the investment climate and strengthen the foundations for a more prosperous and just Sri Lanka. When criticised for focusing on the past and not the present, the government position is that these investigations were initiated under earlier governments, particularly between 2015 and 2019, and that it is now allowing investigators to proceed to deal with the backlog without political interference.

But there is an aspect of the government’s approach that is less justifiable. While pursuing past wrongdoing by powerful individuals, it is also advancing a triumvirate of draft laws that could give the state sweeping powers over citizens, organisations and dissent in the present and future. The draft Prevention of Terrorism legislation, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill raise serious questions about the over-centralisation of power. Each of these laws strengthens the powers of the state while weakening the rights and safeguards that protect people from their misuse and thus questions the basic rights of people in democracy where ‘the power of the people is vested in the government’. This is a recipe for future misrule rather than the rule of law. As the well-known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Proposed Laws

The real test of system change, for which the government obtained an overwhelming mandate, requires not only a government willing to hold others accountable, but one prepared to subject itself to the same principles of legality, transparency and restraint. The three proposed laws that are particularly important in this regard are the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill. Each of these draft laws has been presented as serving a legitimate purpose. Preventing terrorism, combating organised crime and ensuring that NGOs do not facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing are proper responsibilities of the state. Sri Lanka has international obligations in these areas, and no responsible government can disregard them. However, the existence of a legitimate objective does not justify every means adopted to achieve it.

The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill illustrates the problem. Although its definition of terrorism draws on a model developed by a former United Nations Special Rapporteur, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has warned that the definition of terrorism extends beyond the model and could bring legitimate political protest, trade union action and civil disobedience within the scope of counter-terrorism legislation. Its concerns also include prolonged detention, inadequate judicial oversight and restrictions on access to legal counsel. These are objections that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The government cannot credibly promise to protect democratic freedoms while creating powers that could be used to restrict them. It is necessary for the government to reassess the draft through transparent consultation and revise provisions that could criminalise legitimate dissent.

The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill raises similar concerns. It is presented as giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which Sri Lanka ratified in 2006. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has argued that the convention does not require many of the bill’s provisions. The proposed law extends to a broad range of offences, permits detention orders lasting up to a year, makes confessions to police admissible for purposes of legal evidence, and introduces extensive surveillance powers. A law intended to dismantle criminal networks should not create a parallel system of exceptional powers that could be applied far beyond organised crime. Nor should safeguards developed through years of experience with abuses under the Prevention of Terrorism Act be weakened through legislation bearing a different name. The government should review whether or not existing laws could be used effectively to control these crimes or whether each exceptional power is necessary.

Civil Society

The proposed NGO Registration and Supervision Bill presents another test of the government’s intentions. The government may reasonably seek transparency in the finances of organisations receiving public or foreign funds, including measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. It seeks to justify its overreach on the grounds of meeting the internationally mandated requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the Asia-Pacific region. But these objectives do not justify placing civil society and NGOs under excessive administrative control when even the FATF ranks them as low to medium risks. The draft bill would require registration and renewal, impose extensive obligations on organisations and empower authorities to suspend or deregister them on broadly framed grounds. It is important to redraft provisions that confer excessive discretion over registration, renewal, suspension and deregistration of NGOs.

Among the concerns raised by United Nations human rights special rapporteurs with regard to the draft NGO law are provisions requiring organisations to align with government policies and restrictions that could affect advocacy, dissent and freedom of association. The implications extend well beyond organisations that engage directly with the government. Community groups, human rights organisations, independent researchers and organisations working on reconciliation or accountability could find their activities constrained by uncertainty over how these provisions might be interpreted. Organisations that criticise government policies are not thereby working against the country. Their freedom to do so is part of what distinguishes a democracy from a system in which the government determines which opinions and activities are acceptable.

The government has generated considerable public goodwill through its pursuit of corruption and criminality. It should not assume that this goodwill gives it an unlimited mandate to strengthen the coercive powers of the state. The NPP knows from its own history that governments can treat dissent as a threat and use the machinery of the state against their opponents. There is still time to correct the drafts through transparent public consultation, narrow definitions of offences, meaningful judicial control over detention and surveillance, and effective remedies against arbitrary decisions. A government that pursues corruption while weakening safeguards against state abuse risks undermining its own achievements. Besides bringing to light the abuse of power by previous governments, the NPP government needs to build a system in which no future government can abuse power in the belief they can get away with it.

Features

Quality assurance without quality enhancement: The irony of university QA

Published

17 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Ramya Kumar

According to the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) of the University Grants Commission (UGC), quality assurance (QA) refers to “the means (i.e. the policies, attitudes, actions, procedures, etc.), by which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty, that the standards and quality of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced”.

An expansive structure has been in place since 2005 to govern and implement QA processes within the state university system. The QAC is the focal point at the UGC that implements external reviews of state universities and institutes. Each university has its own Centre for Quality Assurance (CQA) tasked with performing QA in line with QAC directives. Faculties, in turn, have Internal Quality Assurance Cells (IQAC) performing their own QA; they are answerable to the CQA.

The big question is whether this all-encompassing top-down QA system, that in many ways undermines the internal dynamics of university governance, actually supports universities to enhance the quality of education. This article highlights some concerns.

Top-down check-box activities

The QAC conducts external reviews of universities and degree programmes. A review team appointed by the UGC (who may or may not have experience in the institution/programme in question) examines the self-evaluation report submitted by the said institution/programme. The team then conducts a site visit to verify the claims made in the university’s self-evaluation report, clarify issues identified during the desk review, and examine how QA procedures operate in practice. The team holds meetings with the university administration, members of the Council and Senate, Deans, Heads of Departments, academic and non-academic staff, students, and others. Following the visit, a draft report is submitted to the relevant institution/programme for comment before final publication. The reviewed institution/programme then prepares and publishes an action plan addressing the recommendations, with subsequent monitoring of progress.

There are some worthy QA initiatives under implementation, such as improving facilities for students with disabilities and strengthening mechanisms to address sexual- and gender-based violence. However, for the most part, QA activities have little to do with improving the quality of education. They are mostly preoccupied with monitoring faculty and department websites, digital transformation, student feedback, subject evaluation, course evaluation, peer evaluation, and, more recently, staff appraisal. These activities, which consume an inordinate amount of time—so precious at understaffed universities—have become check-box activities completed to generate evidence for the next review. Below is an excerpt of a conversation between two academics (1 and 2) that conveys how QA plays out at universities (reproduced with permission).

1: … .it’s like social media you know, like posting things on Facebook or twitter or Instagram. When people do a lot of social media, everything they do, they do thinking, “okay I’m going to post it in this way… this I have to put on my Instagram.” QA is a little like that… everything is considered in light of, “ah we can use this for the review, as evidence… for example very recently we were encouraged to have all the things that we do in our department in the faculty newsletter so then they can put in the review. Every little thing has to be noted down….

2: And with pictures and all…

1: At the very least it has to be written so that you have written evidence .. you can’t be doing something for the sake of doing something or because it is good for the department … and sometimes people tell me “oh yea that’s a good idea we can fit that under this x, y section of the review..”

2: Yea, and nobody really thinks about the actual outcome… whether it’s actually helping anyone..

1: I also find that a lot of the words that we used in different ways have now been co-opted to the QA discourse ..including quality.. I can’t actually say what I want as an “outcome”, for example, that the outcome of this workshop is that my students “think about” … then I am told “ah but no that’s not one of the Bloom’s taxonomy words, “think about”.…

2: And the worst part is these medical and agriculture people, these types of people go around spreading it like some kind of gospel!

1: Yea, this cookie cutter way of doing things, they think is the height of innovativeness or creativity, when actually it is so mundane … for me the most awful thing about it is like some fungus of mundanity has taken over through QA reviews.

2: yea, when you say QA, my mind closes off immediately and I stop listening…

Auditing everything but power

QA leaves out crucial aspects of university governance. For instance, there is no review or assessment of the “quality” of university administrations under Criterion 1 or the integrity of procedures governing the promotion of academic staff under Criterion 6 of the institutional reviews.

The majority in the Council—the university’s executive and governing body, which is responsible for selecting the Vice-Chancellor (VC)—are appointed in ad hoc fashion. Apart from the Ex-Officio members in the Council (VC, Deans, etc.), and the two members elected by the Senate, the remainder are appointed by the UGC with no formal consultation or vetting procedure. The VC appointment process described in UGC Circular No. 03/2023 exemplifies how an ostensibly technical process can become entangled in political sycophancy. The Registrar invites applications for the position of VC through advertisement. Applicants must submit a curriculum vitae, a statement of vision for the university and supporting documents. The University Council appoints a three-member Search Committee of senior academics to encourage “eminent persons” to apply, while the UGC appoints a former VC from another university to “observe” the selection process.

A Special Meeting of the University Council is convened. Candidates are interviewed and must make a presentation to the Council Members, followed by questions. Each Council member “gives marks” for seven prescribed criteria: strategic focus (20%), effective leadership (20%), holistic thinking/conceptual skills (10%), academic and research excellence (15%), personal integrity (10%), professional communication (10%) and managerial competence (15%). Marks are averaged, and the Council recommends three candidates to the UGC in rank order. The UGC-appointed observer separately submits a confidential report on the selection process.

This procedure is expected to guarantee quality, but does it? Applications are submitted to the Council Members, who have been appointed on questionable bases, and who are expected to review the applications and give scores, based on objective assessments. But, in reality, most Council Members are manipulated by VC candidates, who often have personal ties with them. The UGC-appointed observer usually has no genuine interest in the outcome. And there is no way for anyone to actually question the Council’s decision once it is made. Although the highest-ranked candidate may ultimately be appointed, the selection remains a political decision made by the President, who retains the discretion to appoint any one of the three.

External reviews also do not look into the promotions of academic staff, except to scrutinise whether there are policies and procedures in place to govern promotion. Academic staff may apply for promotion to Professor once they satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, which typically include the period of service, academic qualifications, research and publication achievements, teaching experience, and contributions to the university and wider community. Applications are evaluated against specified criteria, with research output and academic contributions assessed through documentary evidence and expert evaluation. Under the UGC’s scheme for Professors, two experts from outside the applicant’s institution assess specified aspects of research and knowledge dissemination. Again, beneath this technical process, which is externally evaluated, lies a problematic points-based scheme that can be manipulated and abused with impunity.

Rethinking university QA

Like the VC election process and the schemes of promotion for academic staff, QA reviews are open to manipulation. Before a review, there is a chaotic rush to complete evidence gathering and reporting. Academics leave all other work aside, including at times their teaching, to focus on completing documentation and preparing reports. The standardised criteria in the review manuals and scoring sheets often do not reflect differences in disciplines and institutional contexts. But this does not really matter because any serious problems experienced by institutions or programmes are hastily brushed under the carpet to conceal any evidence that could taint the review. The goal is to obtain an A or at least a B grade at whatever cost.

QA may result in positive change if it moves beyond top-down check-box activities towards internally designed and owned processes encompassing all aspects of university governance, led by departments and faculties, and supported by adequate resources. The current QA system needs to be dismantled and replaced by procedures that are accountable, not to the UGC, but to our students and the communities we serve.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna)

. Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Features

Down Memory Lane — the Grand 20th Edition!

Published

17 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

Down Memory Lane: Ready to sing again

Yes, Down Memory Lane, the beloved Sing-Along concert series that first struck a chord, way back in 1997, returns for its landmark 20th edition this Saturday, 17th October, at the beautiful Bolgoda Grand Resort, Moratuwa town centre.

Having celebrated its glorious 25th anniversary with the show in 2023, this milestone 20th concert promises to be even more special.

The organisers, the ever-popular Moratuwa Arts Forum, are pulling out all the stops to present yet another unforgettable evening, brimming with camaraderie, fellowship, and pure nostalgia.

Get ready for two-and-a-half hours of non-stop singing as veteran vocalists, from the Moratuwa Arts Forum, will take the stage to lead and inspire the happy audience to sing, sing and sing to their hearts’ content.

The repertoire? Absolutely magical, according to the organisers.

Veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike: Will handle the evening’s proceedings / Priya Peiris: Event Conceptor

Around 40 golden oldies — from timeless English vintage evergreens and hits from the 50s to the 90s, to toe-tapping calypsos, soulful American plantation melodies, rousing cowboy and Dixieland favourites, aa well as cherished Sinhala standards. All to be sung with much gusto!

This year’s dedicated organising committee comprises Brian Coorey (Chairman), Priya Peiris (Event Conceptor), Hiran Fernando, Suranga Fernando, Viranjan Perera, Hemka Fernando and Neelesh Silva. Guidance and support comes from Moratuwa Arts Forum President Sarana Guneratne and Secretary Chandani Silva.

Adding his signature charm to the evening, as Master of Ceremonies, will be the veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike.

Don’t miss this landmark celebration of music and memories!

For further details, contact Hiran Fernando on 0772636446 or WhatsApp 0783636446.