Determination to be conveyed to President, Speaker
By Chitra Weeraratne and A.J.A. Abeynayake
The Supreme Court yesterday concluded the hearing of petitions for and against the constitutionality of the proposed 20th Amendment to the Constitution. The decision of the court will be conveyed to the President and the Speaker.
The five-Judge Bench of the Court heard petitions for the fourth day yesterday.
Thirty nine petitions were filed against the proposed 20th Amendment to the Constitution.
The immunity granted to the President in Article 35, was only during his term of office, Attorney General, Dappulu De Livera informed the Court yesterday.
He appeared for the state, pertaining to the Bill.
President’s Counsel De Livera explained that according to the 20th Amendment the decisions of the Supreme Court were final. Similarly, the Parliament enjoyed certain immunity. There was immunity around every organ of the government, he said.
The immunity under Article 35, was only confined to the term of office in the Bill, but liable thereafter.
“Article 31 states that the President is the Head of Armed forces, according to the amendment. This is needed for public safety, law and order during natural disasters and catastrophes.
If the acts of the President is to be obstructed it will affect all the aforesaid issues. If the President’s actions as are to be subjected to judicial review it will impede his work. This immunity is in Article 35.
In the amendment the President is vested with immunity to safeguard the nation and national security.
The Article 126 jurisdiction is not necessary in view of Article 138 in the Bill, which is a constitutional check on the President.
If the President is constantly pulled back by Article 126, his work will be impeded. The Article 138 in the Bill checks on the acts of the President.
In a vibrant democracy this check has to operate.
In terms of Article 131, the President Exercised Executive power. If that was impeded the sovereignty of the people would be affected.
If the Acts of the President were subject to constant judicial review, his work as President would be impeded. The President had to exercise executive power in public interest and no other, the AG argued.
The AG submitted that Article 126 jurisdiction amounted to a fetter on the presidential acts. He then referred to the dissolution of Parliament in section 14 of the Bill, which seeks to restore the power of the President to dissolve Parliament within one year.
The power to dissolve is granted to the President in public interest. When the President exercises the power vested in him under Article 70, the franchise of the people is ensured. When Parliament is unstable the sovereignty of the people has to be protected. The Executive under public interest can handle instability. Parliament may be elected by the people. If a bad situation arises, the Parliament should be dissolved and the people will be asked to give a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister has to command the confidence of the Parliament. If that is lost, the remedy is for the President to remove him.
The power to remove the Prime Minister in public interest is vested in the President in the new amendment.
The four-and-a half-year period for the dissolution of Parliament had proved ineffective. The Parliament must go on for the welfare of the people, not otherwise when Constitutional Council is replaced by Parliamentary Council, the institution had only been re-defined, the AG added.
The final decision maker was the President. He would exercise t in public interest, the AG added.
“The Executive Power is in the President, not in the Constitutional Council. The President’s hands are not tied.
On Wednesday (30), counsel appearing on behalf of 32 of the petitions filed challenging the proposed constitutional amendment concluded their statements.
When the petitions were taken up on Friday (02), the counsel representing all 39 petitions against the constitutional amendments concluded their oral submissions against the original draft of the 20th Amendment.
During the hearings last week Attorney General Dappula de Livera informed the Supreme Court that amendments would be introduced during the committee stage debate in Parliament on the draft 20th Amendment.
The Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) and the Tamil National Alliance are among the groups that filed petitions in the court against the 20th Amendment to the Constitution.
The five-Judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya commenced hearing of the petitions last Tuesday (Sept. 29).
The bench includes Justices Buwaneka Aluwihare, Justice Sisira de Abrew, Justice Priyantha Jayawardena and Justice Vijith Malalgoda.
GL: Colombo Port City Bill received AG’s sanction
…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.
Wijeyadasa, under heavy flak over opposition to China project, says ready to face consequences
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.
Hiding in obscure corner of India, Myanmar’s ousted lawmakers plotting to dethrone military junta
BY S VENKAT NARAYAN
Our Special Correspondent
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.
GL: Colombo Port City Bill received AG’s sanction
A Policy Science Analysis
Hemas Consumer strengthens portfolio with L’Oréal partnership in Sri Lanka
7-billion-rupee diamond heist; Madush splls the beans before being shot
Unfit, unprofessional, fat Sri Lankans
The Burghers of Ceylon/Sri Lanka- Reminiscences and Anecdotes
Opinion6 days ago
A Cabinet reshuffle needed
Features2 days ago
Port City Bill Requires Referendum
news6 days ago
Proposed law will turn Port City into a province of China – JVP
news6 days ago
PM intervenes to iron out differences among coalition partners
Sports6 days ago
The brand of cricket we want to play is free and relaxed: – Sangakkara
Sports3 days ago
Sebs’ cricket stalwart Cooray retires after more than three decades of service
Editorial6 days ago
Happy New Year!
Sports6 days ago
Sheran’s back to back half centuries help Joes