Connect with us

Features

Constitutional changes in Sri Lanka

Published

on

by Nihal Seneviratne

In recent times much attention has been focused on the subject of constitutional changes in the press and other media. During the last presidential election which Gotabaya Rajapaksa won comfortably he asked the people to give him a two third majority to abolish the 19th Amendment of the Constitution as well as draft an entirely new Constitution replacing the 1978 constitution of the late J.R. Jayewardene.

The people gave him this mandate. Since Independence this country has had the benefit of three constitutions viz. the Soulbury Constitutions, the Colvin Constitution of 1972 and the 1978 Constitution of JRJ now amended 20 times. It may be relevant and useful to retrace the different steps taken to have these three constitutions introduced to become the supreme law of the land. Such a review follows.

 

The Soulbury Constitution

 

Let us go back to 1945-46 when UK won the Second World War. At the general elections that followed, the Labour Party won a majority and chose their leader, Clement Atlee, to head the new government. By then the UK govt. was well aware of the numorous representations made by Sinhala Nationalist Leaders, starting with D. S. Senanayake, calling for Independence from the British. It was in this context that the UK Govt. appointed a Commission Headed by Lord Soulbury and consisting of Sir Fredrick Rees and FG Burrows to visit Ceylon to inquire into the Independence demand and report their views to London.

D. S. Senanayake and Governor Andrew Caldecott were in contact with the Colonial Office in London. They informed D. S. Senanayake that they had no draftsman available to undertake the work of drafting a Constitution as it was soon after the war and they were still recovering. The Legal Secretary was of Ceylon at the time was D. B. Nihill who had been instructed by the Colonial Office to draft a new constitution and prepare a draft of the Order-in-Council.

Soon after D. S. Senanayake had asked for a team from the Legal Draftsmen to study and work on the documents already in circulations viz the Board of Ministers draft prepared by Sir Ivor Jennings, the report of the Soulbury Commission and the White Paper embodying the decisions of the UK Govt. There was also available correspondence between the Governor and the Secretary of State for the Colonies which had already been published as a Sessional Paper.

Soon after a team from the Legal Draftsman Dept. headed by P.C. Villavarayan, the Legal Drftsman. H. N. G. Fernando and B. P. Pieris as Asst. Secretaries were entrusted the task of preparing the two Orders- in-Council. This was approved by Nihill and Drayton and shown to D. S. Senanayake. The two

Constitution Orders-in-Council approved by Her Majesty in Council became the law and was published in the Gazette soon after the House of Commons passed the Independence Act and the Soulbury Commission Report, as amended, became the Ceylon Constitution of 1948.

 

 

The 1972 Constitution

In May 1970 after the General Election where Mrs. Sirima Bandaranaike and her SLFP, together with their allies were elected to power, Mrs. Bandaranaike assumed duties as Prime Minister – the world’s first woman to hold that office ahead of leaders like Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi who took office much later Mrs. Bandranaike formed a Socialist government together with the LSSP and CP. Among the Minister in her Cabinet was Dr. N. M. Perera, as Minister of Finance, Dr. Colvin R de Silva as Minister of Plantations and Constitutional Affairs, Leslie Goonenawardene as Minister of Communications and Pieter Keuneman as Minister of Housing and Construction.

Dr. Colvin R de Silva was given the task of framing a new constitution. He expressed his desire to have no connection with the Soulbury Constitution which he felt was foisted on us by the British and was going to frame an entirely new Constitution. On July 11, 1970, the PM issued a communication convening the first session of the Constituent Assembly. The resolution in the legislature read: “We the Members of the House of Representative do truly resolve and constitute, declare and proclaim ourselves as the Constituent Assembly of the people of Sri Lanka for the purpose of adopting and establishing a Constitution ……to be a free and independent Sovereign Republic…… deriving its authority from the people of Sri Lanka and not from the power and authority created by the British Crown and the Parliament of the UK… for carrying out the said mandate under the presidency of Stanley Tillakaratne and to consider the proposals introduced by the Minister of Constitutional Affairs.

The Members of the House of Representatives under Speaker Stanley Tilakeratne decided to sit in the morning session as the House of Representatives and in the afternoon sit as members of the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Colvin R de Silva had persuaded Walter Jayawadena, an eminent Queens Counsel in the UK, to function as Secretary to the Constituent Assembly with Sam Wijesinha and myself as Assistant Secretaries. The committee met 47 times from 1970 to 1972 and the 1972 constitution was established on May 22, 1972.

 

The 1978 constitution

 

After J. R. Jayewardene’s victory at the 1977 General Election where he received an unexpected five sixth majority, he appointed a Select Committee of the House on June 22, 1978 with representation from the Government and Opposition. The Motion to establish this Select Committee was moved by R. Premadasa and the Chairman of the Select Committee was J. R. Jayewardene. They held 15 meetings before its report was presented to Parliament and passed, making J. R. Jayawardene the first Executive Head of Government, a position held by the Prime Minister for a long period. Thus was established the Constitution of 1978.

 

A new Constitution for Sri Lanka in 2021

 

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa faced a Parliamentary Elections in August which he won comfortably.

During the election he promised the repeal of the 19th Amendment and also promised to introduce a new Constitution. The 20th Amendment to the present Constitution was passed very recently.

It was later announced that the President had appointed a nine-member team of eminent lawyers headed by Romesh de Silva PC, to prepare and draft a new constitution to replace the 1978 constitution in its entirety. This team of lawyers made a public announcement calling for representations and memorandums to be submitted to the committee, I believe by November 30.

These eminent lawyers would sift through the representations and memorandums received and prepare a draft report which is expected to be submitted to the President. The President is expected to submit the report and draft to the Speaker and the Speaker would submit this report and thereafter appoint a Select Committee comprising members from both Government and Opposition.

The Select Committee following the usual established procedure would invite representations from the public and would study all these memorandums and submit the report back to Parliament with their recommendation. It would deliberate at length, studying all the representation made and submit its final report to Parliament.

Thereafter a new Bill containing the new draft constitution would be gazetted and thereafter be taken up for debate in Parliament. After the gazetting the public would be given the opportunity to petition the Supreme Court regarding any inconsistencies in the Bill. Thereafter the Bill, with the recommendation of the Supreme Court, will be placed before Parliament. If the Supreme Court determines that the Bill would require a two third majority along with a Referendum this should be followed. Finally the draft Constitution would be placed before Parliament for the first, second and third readings and thereafter certified by the Speaker to make it the law of the land.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

US’ drastic aid cut to UN poses moral challenge to world

Published

on

An UN humanitarian mission in the Gaza. [File: Ashraf Amra/Anadolu Agency]

‘Adapt, shrink or die’ – thus runs the warning issued by the Trump administration to UN humanitarian agencies with brute insensitivity in the wake of its recent decision to drastically reduce to $2bn its humanitarian aid to the UN system. This is a substantial climb down from the $17bn the US usually provided to the UN for its humanitarian operations.

Considering that the US has hitherto been the UN’s biggest aid provider, it need hardly be said that the US decision would pose a daunting challenge to the UN’s humanitarian operations around the world. This would indeed mean that, among other things, people living in poverty and stifling material hardships, in particularly the Southern hemisphere, could dramatically increase. Coming on top of the US decision to bring to an end USAID operations, the poor of the world could be said to have been left to their devices as a consequence of these morally insensitive policy rethinks of the Trump administration.

Earlier, the UN had warned that it would be compelled to reduce its aid programs in the face of ‘the deepest funding cuts ever.’ In fact the UN is on record as requesting the world for $23bn for its 2026 aid operations.

If this UN appeal happens to go unheeded, the possibilities are that the UN would not be in a position to uphold the status it has hitherto held as the world’s foremost humanitarian aid provider. It would not be incorrect to state that a substantial part of the rationale for the UN’s existence could come in for questioning if its humanitarian identity is thus eroded.

Inherent in these developments is a challenge for those sections of the international community that wish to stand up and be counted as humanists and the ‘Conscience of the World.’ A responsibility is cast on them to not only keep the UN system going but to also ensure its increased efficiency as a humanitarian aid provider to particularly the poorest of the poor.

It is unfortunate that the US is increasingly opting for a position of international isolation. Such a policy position was adopted by it in the decades leading to World War Two and the consequences for the world as a result for this policy posture were most disquieting. For instance, it opened the door to the flourishing of dictatorial regimes in the West, such as that led by Adolph Hitler in Germany, which nearly paved the way for the subjugation of a good part of Europe by the Nazis.

If the US had not intervened militarily in the war on the side of the Allies, the West would have faced the distressing prospect of coming under the sway of the Nazis and as a result earned indefinite political and military repression. By entering World War Two the US helped to ward off these bleak outcomes and indeed helped the major democracies of Western Europe to hold their own and thrive against fascism and dictatorial rule.

Republican administrations in the US in particular have not proved the greatest defenders of democratic rule the world over, but by helping to keep the international power balance in favour of democracy and fundamental human rights they could keep under a tight leash fascism and linked anti-democratic forces even in contemporary times. Russia’s invasion and continued occupation of parts of Ukraine reminds us starkly that the democracy versus fascism battle is far from over.

Right now, the US needs to remain on the side of the rest of the West very firmly, lest fascism enjoys another unfettered lease of life through the absence of countervailing and substantial military and political power.

However, by reducing its financial support for the UN and backing away from sustaining its humanitarian programs the world over the US could be laying the ground work for an aggravation of poverty in the South in particular and its accompaniments, such as, political repression, runaway social discontent and anarchy.

What should not go unnoticed by the US is the fact that peace and social stability in the South and the flourishing of the same conditions in the global North are symbiotically linked, although not so apparent at first blush. For instance, if illegal migration from the South to the US is a major problem for the US today, it is because poor countries are not receiving development assistance from the UN system to the required degree. Such deprivation on the part of the South leads to aggravating social discontent in the latter and consequences such as illegal migratory movements from South to North.

Accordingly, it will be in the North’s best interests to ensure that the South is not deprived of sustained development assistance since the latter is an essential condition for social contentment and stable governance, which factors in turn would guard against the emergence of phenomena such as illegal migration.

Meanwhile, democratic sections of the rest of the world in particular need to consider it a matter of conscience to ensure the sustenance and flourishing of the UN system. To be sure, the UN system is considerably flawed but at present it could be called the most equitable and fair among international development organizations and the most far-flung one. Without it world poverty would have proved unmanageable along with the ills that come along with it.

Dehumanizing poverty is an indictment on humanity. It stands to reason that the world community should rally round the UN and ensure its survival lest the abomination which is poverty flourishes. In this undertaking the world needs to stand united. Ambiguities on this score could be self-defeating for the world community.

For example, all groupings of countries that could demonstrate economic muscle need to figure prominently in this initiative. One such grouping is BRICS. Inasmuch as the US and the West should shrug aside Realpolitik considerations in this enterprise, the same goes for organizations such as BRICS.

The arrival at the above international consensus would be greatly facilitated by stepped up dialogue among states on the continued importance of the UN system. Fresh efforts to speed-up UN reform would prove major catalysts in bringing about these positive changes as well. Also requiring to be shunned is the blind pursuit of narrow national interests.

Continue Reading

Features

Egg white scene …

Published

on

Hi! Great to be back after my Christmas break.

Thought of starting this week with egg white.

Yes, eggs are brimming with nutrients beneficial for your overall health and wellness, but did you know that eggs, especially the whites, are excellent for your complexion?

OK, if you have no idea about how to use egg whites for your face, read on.

Egg White, Lemon, Honey:

Separate the yolk from the egg white and add about a teaspoon of freshly squeezed lemon juice and about one and a half teaspoons of organic honey. Whisk all the ingredients together until they are mixed well.

Apply this mixture to your face and allow it to rest for about 15 minutes before cleansing your face with a gentle face wash.

Don’t forget to apply your favourite moisturiser, after using this face mask, to help seal in all the goodness.

Egg White, Avocado:

In a clean mixing bowl, start by mashing the avocado, until it turns into a soft, lump-free paste, and then add the whites of one egg, a teaspoon of yoghurt and mix everything together until it looks like a creamy paste.

Apply this mixture all over your face and neck area, and leave it on for about 20 to 30 minutes before washing it off with cold water and a gentle face wash.

Egg White, Cucumber, Yoghurt:

In a bowl, add one egg white, one teaspoon each of yoghurt, fresh cucumber juice and organic honey. Mix all the ingredients together until it forms a thick paste.

Apply this paste all over your face and neck area and leave it on for at least 20 minutes and then gently rinse off this face mask with lukewarm water and immediately follow it up with a gentle and nourishing moisturiser.

Egg White, Aloe Vera, Castor Oil:

To the egg white, add about a teaspoon each of aloe vera gel and castor oil and then mix all the ingredients together and apply it all over your face and neck area in a thin, even layer.

Leave it on for about 20 minutes and wash it off with a gentle face wash and some cold water. Follow it up with your favourite moisturiser.

Continue Reading

Features

Confusion cropping up with Ne-Yo in the spotlight

Published

on

Ne-Yo: His management should clarify the last-minute cancellation

Superlatives galore were used, especially on social media, to highlight R&B singer Ne-Yo’s trip to Sri Lanka: Global superstar Ne-Yo to perform live in Colombo this December; Ne-Yo concert puts Sri Lanka back on the global entertainment map; A global music sensation is coming to Sri Lanka … and there were lots more!

At an official press conference, held at a five-star venue, in Colombo, it was indicated that the gathering marked a defining moment for Sri Lanka’s entertainment industry as international R&B powerhouse and three-time Grammy Award winner Ne-Yo prepares to take the stage in Colombo this December.

What’s more, the occasion was graced by the presence of Sunil Kumara Gamage, Minister of Sports & Youth Affairs of Sri Lanka, and Professor Ruwan Ranasinghe, Deputy Minister of Tourism, alongside distinguished dignitaries, sponsors, and members of the media.

Shah Rukh Khan: Disappointed his fans in Sri Lanka

According to reports, the concert had received the official endorsement of the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau, recognising it as a flagship initiative in developing the country’s concert economy by attracting fans, and media, from all over South Asia.

Nick Carter: His concert, too, was cancelled due to “Unforeseen circumstances

However, I had that strange feeling that this concert would not become a reality, keeping in mind what happened to Nick Carter’s Colombo concert – cancelled at the very last moment.

Carter issued a video message announcing he had to return to the USA due to “unforeseen circumstances” and a “family emergency”.

Though “unforeseen circumstances” was the official reason provided by Carter and the local organisers, there was speculation that low ticket sales may also have been a factor in the cancellation.

Well, “Unforeseen Circumstances” has cropped up again!

In a brief statement, via social media, the organisers of the Ne-Yo concert said the decision was taken due to “unforeseen circumstances and factors beyond their control.”

Ne-Yo, too, subsequently made an announcement, citing “Unforeseen circumstances.”

The public has a right to know what these “unforeseen circumstances” are, and who is to be blamed – the organisers or Ne-Yo!

Ne-Yo’s management certainly need to come out with the truth.

However, those who are aware of some of the happenings in the setup here put it down to poor ticket sales, mentioning that the tickets for the concert, and a meet-and-greet event, were exorbitantly high, considering that Ne-Yo is not a current mega star.

We also had a cancellation coming our way from Shah Rukh Khan, who was scheduled to visit Sri Lanka for the City of Dreams resort launch, and then this was received: “Unfortunately due to unforeseen personal reasons beyond his control, Mr. Khan is no longer able to attend.”

Referring to this kind of mess up, a leading showbiz personality said that it will only make people reluctant to buy their tickets, online.

“Tickets will go mostly at the gate and it will be very bad for the industry,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending