Connect with us

news

Prez to consolidate power

Published

on

* Constitutional Council to be abolished

* No provision for civil society members

* Dual citizens can enter parliament

* A person aged 30 can run for President

* Restriction on number of Cabinet ministers, deputies removed

* Parliament can be dissolved within one year

* Romesh de Silva heads team tasked with preparing draft new Constitution

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Constitutional Council (CC) introduced in terms of the 19th Amendment in 2015 is to be abolished by the 20th Amendment (20A) gazetted yesterday (3).

In place of the 10- member CC, the 20A has proposed a Parliamentary Council comprising the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the Opposition Leader and nominees (one each) of the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader.

The 20th Amendment stipulates that the nominees of the Premier and the Opposition Leader belong to the communities other than the communities represented by the Prime Minister, the Speaker and the Opposition Leader.

In terms of the 19th Amendment, the CC headed by the Speaker, included three civil society representatives as well as a representative of the President. The 20A has done away with both civil society representatives and the presidential nominee.

Cabinet spokesman Mass Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella and co-cabinet spokespersons, Ministers, Dr. Ramesh Pathirana and Udaya Gammanpila refrained from commenting on the provisions of the 20A in spite of the media repeatedly seeking their comments.

The Attorney General on Sept 2, ruled that the 20A could be enacted by a two-thirds vote sans a referendum. SLPP National List member Justice Minister Ali Sabry, PC, worked out the 20th Amendment.

In line with 20A, the President will have the authority to make appointments to the Election Commission, the Public Service Commission, the National Police Commission, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, the Finance Commission and the Delimitation Commission (all in Schedule I) having obtained observations of the Parliamentary Council.

The President will seek the observations of the Parliamentary Council in appointing the Chief Justice and judges of the Supreme Court, the President and the judges of the Court of Appeal and the members of the Judicial Service Commission other than the Chairman (all under Schedule II/Part I) and the Attorney General, the Auditor General, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman) and the Secretary General (Schedule II/Part II).

In terms of the 20th Amendment, the immunity of the President, both in official and private capacity has been restored.

The SLPP, both at the presidential and parliamentary elections held in Nov 2019, and Aug 2020, respectively, campaigned for a two-thirds majority to do away with the 19th Amendment. The SLFP obtained 145 seats and with the support of its allies can muster the required two thirds.

There is provision in the 20th Amendment for the President to remove the nominees of the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader in the Parliamentary Council.

The Parliamentary Council has to submit its observations as regards the President’s nominees to the above mentioned offices within one week. In case, the Parliamentary Council fails to respond within a week after the President sought its observations, there is provision for the President to go ahead with the appointments.

There is provision for leaders of recognised political parties to propose suitable persons to the Commissions categorized under Scheduled I for the President’s consideration.

The 20th Amendment also seeks to do away with the restriction on the number of ministers to 30 and non-cabinet ministers to 40 introduced by the 19th Amendment. The President will be head of the cabinet.

The 20th A seeks to provide space for the President, in consultation with the President, if necessary, to determine the number of ministers and also appoint ministers who are not members of the cabinet of ministers. There is also provision for the appointment of Deputy Ministers, from time to time, in consultation with the Prime Minister, if necessary, to assist members of the cabinet.

In terms of the 20th Amendment, the President can remove Prime Minister, a member of the cabinet, any other minister or a Deputy Minister.

The President has retained the constitutional authority to dissolve parliament after completion of sittings for a period of one year. The 19th Amendment, deprived the President the power to dissolve parliament until the House completed four and half years of five-year term.

The 20th Amendment has retained the five-year term for the President and two term restriction.

 

The 20th Amendment provides for the introduction of emergency Bills.

The age of presidential contestants has been reduced to 30 from 35. The 20th Amendment also paved the way for dual citizens to contest parliamentary election.

Addressing the media at the Information Department, cabinet spokesperson said that a nine member expert committee headed by Romesh De Silva, PC had been asked to prepare a new draft Constitution. The media was told that the 20th Amendment was temporary measure until consensus could be reached on a brand new Constitution. The team comprises Gamini Marapana, PC, Manohara de Silva, PC, Sanjiva Jayawardena, PC, Samantha Ratwatte, PC, Professor Nasima Kamurdeen, Dr. A Sarweswaran, Professor Wasantha Seneviratne and Professor G. H. Peiris.



news

GL: Colombo Port City Bill received AG’s sanction

Published

on

…SC scheduled to commence hearing petitions today

By Shamindra Ferdinando

SLPP Chairman Prof. G.L. Peiris says that the proposed Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill is consistent with the Constitution. Prof. Peiris, who is also the Education Minister, insists the Bill received the sanction of the Attorney General.

Prof. Peiris explained to the media the circumstances under which the incumbent government had initiated the proposed Bill. He did so having briefed Ven. Dr. Ittapane Dhammalankara Thera as regards the current political developments, at the Sri Dharmaloka Maha Viharaya, Rukmale, Pannipitiya, on Saturday (17).

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa recently presented the Colombo Port City EC Bill to the Cabinet of ministers. The 76-page Bill provides for the establishment of an EC authorised to grant registrations, licences, authorisations, and other approvals to carry on businesses and other activities in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to be established within the Colombo Port City.

Responding to government member Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse’s bombshell accusations that the proposed Bill when enacted in parliament would transform newly reclaimed land adjacent to the Galle Face Green to sovereign Chinese territory, Prof. Peiris emphasized the responsibility on the part of the President in respect of the implementation of the project. Declaring that even an amendment couldn’t be moved without specific approval of the President, Prof. Peiris said all reports pertaining to financial matters, too, should be submitted to the President.

The former law professor also challenged those opposed to the proposed Bill claiming that the police and the military would be excluded from performing duties in the reclaimed land. One-time External Affairs Minister insisted that the police and the military enjoyed the right to exercise powers in terms of the country’s law in case of violations.

The minister said that the government was keen to create an environment conducive for foreign direct investment. However, those who now decried the Colombo Port City EC Bill conveniently forgot the formation of the ‘Greater Colombo Economic Commission’ (GCEC) under a new draconian Bill introduced by the then President J.R. Jayewardene.

Prof. Peiris said unlike JRJ’s Bill, the one proposed by the incumbent government adhered to the Constitution hence the approval from the Attorney General.

Prof. Peiris alleged that the JRJ’s Act paved the way for GCEC to take decisions pertaining to newly formed Export processing Zones (EPZ) and basically conduct its affairs outside the purview of the parliament. Claiming that those who exercised the required powers could transfer funds to and from accounts and anyone violating the secrecy faced jail terms, Prof. Peiris stressed that even the judiciary couldn’t intervene in some matters pertaining to this particular Act introduced in 1978.

According to Prof. Peiris, in 1992, the then President Ranasinghe Premadasa further strengthened the law by depriving the public an opportunity to obtain a restraining order from a court in respect of the all-powerful Commission.

Prof. Peiris accused the UNP and its breakaway faction, the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) and other interested parties of propagating lies against the project as part of their overall political strategy. The minister acknowledged that the UNP was among those who moved the Supreme Court against the proposed Bill.

Since former Justice Minister Rajapakse strongly condemned the proposed Bill at a hastily arranged media briefing at Abayaramaya under the auspices of Ven Muruththettuwe Ananda thera, several Ministers and State Ministers, Keheliya Ranbukwelle, Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Prof. G. L. Peiris, Namal Rajapaksa, Ajith Nivard Cabraal responded to their colleague on behalf of the government.

A five-member bench of the Supreme Court will begin hearing the petitions today (19).

Among those who filed cases against the proposed Bill were President of the Bar Association Saliya Pieris, PC, former lawmaker Wasantha Samarasinghe on behalf of the JVP, civil society activists, Gamini Viyangoda and K.W. Janaranjana on behalf of Purawesi  Balaya and the Center for Policy Alternatives (CPA).

Viyangoda questioned the government’s motive in depriving the public ample time and space to challenge the constitutionality of the Bill.

Purawesi Balaya spokesperson said that the disputed Bill had been placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on the 8th of April 2021, at a time when the sittings of the Supreme Court were suspended for the vacation. In terms of the Constitution any citizen seeking to challenge a Bill on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the Constitution has to do so within one week of being placed on the Order Paper of Parliament, which in this instance is the 15 th of April 2021. The petitioner said between the 8 th April 2021 and 15 th April 2021, there were the weekend and three public holidays intervening, thereby giving any citizen seeking to challenge the Bill, only two working days to obtain legal advice and representation.

Those who complained bitterly over urgent Bills exercised the same strategy as regards the controversial Bill, the civil society activist said. Responding to another query, Viyangoda said that if the government was confident the Bill didn’t violate the Constitution, it could have been properly discussed at their parliamentary group meeting before being presented to the cabinet of ministers.

Continue Reading

news

Wijeyadasa, under heavy flak over opposition to China project, says ready to face consequences

Published

on

by Shamindra Ferdinando

SLPP lawmaker Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, PC, yesterday (18) told The Island that he stood by the accusations he made in respect of the proposed Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill.

The former Justice Minister emphasised that he had expressed concerns publicly regarding the planned project after carefully examining the proposed Bill.

“In spite of a spate of statements issued by various government spokespersons, I’m confident of the legal process scheduled to begin today (19). The entire country should be concerned over the government move made at the behest of China.”

Responding to another query, the Colombo district MP urged political parties represented in Parliament to study the Bill with an open mind. The proposed law should be examined taking into consideration the previous UNP-led government transferring control of the strategic Hambantota port to China on a 99-year-lease and China is also in control of a terminal in the Colombo port for 35 years.

The MP said that he was ready to face the consequences of his decision to take a contrary view as regards the Chinese project. Those who had been benefited by the mega China funded project would shamelessly back it, lawmaker Dr. Rajapakse maintained, recollecting how members of parliament backed the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement brokered by Norway, shielded Treasury bond thieves et al.

Those who moved the Supreme Court against the proposed Bill included the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, MP Rajapakse said. The former Minister claimed that unprecedented tax exemptions provided to the businesses coming up in the newly reclaimed land adjacent to the Galle Face Green would pose a severe threat to the national economy.

The MP said that he didn’t personally have anything against China or any other country, but strongly believed in political and economic independence of the country. Therefore, the right-thinking lawmakers couldn’t under any circumstances vote for the proposed Bill as it was, the former Minister said.

Continue Reading

news

Hiding in obscure corner of India, Myanmar’s ousted lawmakers plotting to dethrone military junta

Published

on

BY S VENKAT NARAYAN

Our Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI:

Roughly a dozen ousted Myanmar lawmakers, who fled to India after the February 1 military coup, are now busy plotting to dethrone the generals.

In a spartan hillside room in India furnished only with a thin sleeping mat, one of the Myanmar Members of Parliament (MPs) spends much of his days attentively listening to Zoom conference calls and tapping away messages on his smartphone.

The short, soft-spoken man is among the handful of ousted Myanmar MPs who have fled across the border to India’s remote north-eastern region after the military coup and the lethal crackdown on dissent.

Two of the lawmakers and a Myanmar politician spoke to a Reuters reporter. They are involved with the Committee Representing the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw or CRPH, a body of ousted lawmakers that is attempting to re-establish the civilian government and displace the military.

The three said the group is supporting demonstrations, helping distribute funds to supporters and holding negotiations with multiple entities to quickly form a civilian administration nationwide. They asked not to be named for fear of reprisals against their families back home.

Most of the ousted lawmakers are from deposed leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) that overwhelmingly won a November 2020 election, which the military has annulled.

The coup has been met with a fierce pro-democracy movement and tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets across the country, despite the crackdown.

Security forces have killed over 700 people, and more than 3,000 have been detained, including more than 150 lawmakers and members of the former government. Mobile and wireless internet services have been shut down.

The fear of detention and inability to rebuild a civilian government without internet connectivity has driven some Myanmar lawmakers involved in the resistance to work from India, the two MPs elected to Myanmar’s Parliament said.

“There is no time,” one of them, who is from the country’s western Chin state, told Reuters. “People are dying in our country.”

A spokesman for Myanmar’s military did not answer calls seeking comment. The junta has accused the CRPH of treason. The group is working to set up a national unity government to challenge the military’s authority.

Since fleeing to India around two weeks ago, the lawmaker said he had been holding regular discussions with colleagues to set up a parallel administration in Chin state, under directions from the CRPH.

The process is complex, involving building consensus between elected representatives, political parties, ethnic armed groups, civil society bodies and civil disobedience movement leaders, the two lawmakers and the politician said.

The CRPH is also keen on opening communications with India, where at least 1,800 people from Myanmar are already sheltering. It will seek New Delhi’s blessings for the parallel government it is attempting to form, the politician said.

“We can’t rely on China, Thailand and other neighbouring countries,” he said. “The only country where refugees are being welcomed is India”.

India’s External Affairs Ministry did not immediately respond to questions from Reuters.

This week, NLD lawmakers from Myanmar’s northern Sagaing region held an online conference call, but only 26 out of 49 representatives dialled in, according to the second MP who attended the meeting from India.

“We don’t know where the rest are,” the federal lawmaker said. Two party officials were now trying to track down their missing colleagues.

Some of the fiercest resistance to the junta has come from Sagaing. In the last two months, around 2,000 families involved in the civil disobedience movement in one part of the region have been given financial assistance of around 17 million Kyat ($12,143), the lawmaker from Sagaing said.

The presence and activities of escapee Myanmar lawmakers could pose a diplomatic quandary to India, particularly given New Delhi’s close ties with the Myanmar military rulers.

But India’s position on the Myanmar crisis itself appears to have somewhat shifted in recent weeks. This has also been acknowledged by some CRPH representatives.

At an United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting on April 10, Indian diplomat K. Nagaraj Naidu said New Delhi is pushing for a return to democracy in Myanmar. “The first, and most immediate step, in this regard is the release of detained leaders,” Naidu said.

However, India is concerned around internal divisions within the CRPH that could hobble its functioning, a source with knowledge of New Delhi’s thinking said.

The politician involved with the CRPH said he is hopeful that India will engage with the group.

“If democracy wins in Myanmar, it is also a win for India,” he said.

Continue Reading

Trending