5 October, 2022

Blog

Constitutionality Of The Dissolution Of Parliament: An Interpretation?  

By Laksiri Fernando –

Dr. Laksiri Fernando

The only true guide and the only course which can produce stability in constitutional law is to read the language of the constitution itself, no doubt generously and not pedantically, but as a whole and find its meaning by legal reasoning.” ~ Garfield Barwick (CJ, Australia, 1964-1981)  

What is important in understanding the provisions of the Constitution in respect of the powers and functions of the President with regard to the dissolution of Parliament is to read carefully the provisions objectively and without preconceived values or advocacy. As Sir Garfield Barwick said, ‘read the language of the constitution itself’ and I must add – without dragging into what others’ have said, or what must have been desirable given political objectives or intentions in a particular amendment.  

There are two important Articles 33 and 70 which give powers and also prescribe certain limitations in respect of dissolution of Parliament by the President. The first Article 30 is in Chapter VII titled ‘The Executive’ and subtitled ‘The President of the Republic.’ Second, Article 70 is in Chapter XI titled ‘The Legislature’ and subtitled ‘Procedures and Powers.’ 

Article 33: Duties, Powers and Functions of the President

Let me first quote Article 33 in full, highlighting in bold what might be most pertinent.  

Article 33. (1) It shall be the duty of the President to 

(a)  ensure that the Constitution is respected and upheld; 

(b) promote national reconciliation and integration; 

(c)  ensure and facilitate the proper functioning of the Constitutional Council and the institutions referred to in Chapter VIIA; and 

(d) on the advice of the Election Commission, ensure the creation of proper conditions for the conduct of free and fair elections and referenda. 

(2) In addition to the powers, duties and functions expressly conferred or imposed on, or assigned to the President by the Constitution or other written law, the President shall have the power 

(a)  to make the Statement of Government Policy in Parliament at the commencement of each session of Parliament; 

(b) to preside at ceremonial sittings of Parliament; 

(c)  to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament; 

(d) to receive and recognize, and to appoint and accredit Ambassadors, High Commissioners, Plenipotentiaries and other diplomatic agents (g) declare war and peace ;

(e)  to appoint as President’s Counsel, attorneys-at-law who have reached eminence in the profession and have maintained high standards of conduct and professional rectitude. Every President’s Counsel appointed under this paragraph shall be entitled to all such privileges as were hitherto enjoyed by Queen’s Counsel; 

(f)  to keep the Public Seal of the Republic, and to make and execute under the Public Seal, the acts of appointment of the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and other judges of the Court of Appeal, and such grants and dispositions of lands and other immovable property vested in the Republic as the President is by law required or empowered to do, and to use the Public Seal for sealing all things whatsoever that shall pass that Seal; 

(g) to declare war and peace; and 

(h) to do all such acts and things, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or written law, as by international law, custom or usage the President is authorized or required to do.

Interpretation of Article 33

As anyone can read from section 2 (c ) of Article 33, there is no limitations or conditions attached to the powers of the President to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament. There is no other interpretation that could be given, as far as I am concerned. 

The section 2 (h) also amounts to some reserved or discretionary powers given even to nominal Heads of State in many democratic countries. 

Article 70: Procedure and Powers of the Legislature 

Article 70 in full is given below, highlighting in bold what might be most pertinent to this interpretation.   

Article 70 (1) The President may by Proclamation, summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament: 

Provided that the President shall not dissolve Parliament until the expiration of a period of not less than four years and six months from the date appointed for its first meeting, unless Parliament requests the President to do so by a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Members (including those not present), voting in its favour. 

(2) Parliament shall be summoned to meet once at least in every year. 

(3) A Proclamation proroguing Parliament shall fix a date for the next session, not being more than two months after the date of the Proclamation : 

Provided that at any time while Parliament stands prorogued the President may by Proclamation 

(i)  summon Parliament for an earlier date, not being less than three days from the date of such Proclamation, or 

(ii) subject to the provisions of this Article, dissolve Parliament. 

(4) All matters which, having been duly brought before Parliament, have not been disposed of at the time of the prorogation of Parliament, may be proceeded with during the next session. 

(5) (a) A Proclamation dissolving Parliament shall fix a date or dates for the election of Members of Parliament, and shall summon the new Parliament to meet on a date not later than three months after the date of such Proclamation. 

(b) Upon the dissolution of Parliament by virtue of the provisions of paragraph (2) of Article 62, the President shall forthwith by Proclamation fix a date or dates for the election of Members of Parliament, and shall summon the new Parliament to meet on a date not later than three months after the date of such Proclamation. 

(c) The date fixed for the first meeting of Parliament by a Proclamation under sub-paragraph (a) or sub-paragraph (b) may be varied by a subsequent Proclamation, provided that the date so fixed by the subsequent Proclamation shall be a date not later than three months after the date of the original Proclamation. 

(6) Where the poll for the election of the President is to be taken on a date which falls between the date of dissolution of Parliament and the date before which Parliament is required by paragraph (5) of this Article to be summoned to meet, Parliament shall, notwithstanding anything in that paragraph, be summoned to meet on a date not later than four months after the date of dissolution of Parliament. 

(7) If at any time after the dissolution of Parliament, the President is satisfied that an emergency has arisen of such a nature that an earlier meeting of Parliament is necessary, he may by Proclamation summon the Parliament which has been dissolved to meet on a date not less than three days from the date of such Proclamation and such Parliament shall stand dissolved upon the termination of the emergency or the conclusion of the General Election, whichever is earlier.  

Interpretation of Article 70  

There are two procedures provided in the constitution in Article 70 in dissolving Parliament by the President. 

First is under 70 (1) when Parliament is not prorogued, and in session, where the President may dissolve on the request of Parliament but by a resolution passed of not less than two-thirds of the number of members (including those not present), voting in its favour.      

Second is under Article 70 (3) (ii), which provides that at any time while Parliament stands prorogued, the President may by proclamation dissolve Parliament subject to the provisions of this Article (English version).

There can be a speculation as to what it means by ‘subject to the provisions of this Article? Could it mean 70 (1) where it requires a two thirds approval? Or something else? It cannot possibly be about 70 (1) and ‘two thirds majority’ because the Parliament is dissolved.  The present dissolution, in other words, is under the circumstances of a prorogation where 70 (1) cannot apply. 

In the Sinhala version, what it says is not ‘subject to the provisions of this Article’ but ‘subject to the provisions of this constitution’ (‘me viyawasthawe vidividana valata yatathwa’). It is a general condition and not specific. 

Conclusion 

Careful examination and interpretation of Article 33 (particularly section 2 (c )) and Article 70 (particularly section 3 (ii)) show there is no constitutional impediment for the President to dissolve Parliament under the conditions of prorogation. 

If the prorogation is proved unconstitutional, then it would be possible to prove the dissolution unconstitutional. However as far as I know, no one except Nagananda Kodituwakku has filed a case against the prorogation. 

The other rare possibility is to prove that the dissolution is against any other ‘important provision/s of the constitution.’ It has to be quite specific since the provisions permitting dissolution are specific both in Article 33 and Article 70. For this matter, one also has to argue on the basis of the Sinhala version (perhaps the Tamil version). 

As far as the scope of this (my) article is concerned, I couldn’t find any specific provision, except Article 33A which says “The President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution…” 

However, if this is an overarching and overall limiting condition that the executive President should submit to, then the inclusion of such in the 19th Amendment should have required a people’s referendum. This article co-existed with the powers of the executive President before, and should be the case even today with nuances. Otherwise, our whole constitutional system will collapse and an anarchy would be created.        

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 28
    7

    You support dictatorship in Sri Lanka..Legal interpretation can be done in many ways to suit each parties but where has been your self consciousness? you want to bring back the country into dark days. We have had enough of dictatorial rule during last time of MR. do you want to repeat it again.
    You know well MS is doing this for his second term. You know where MR is greedy for power.
    You know well MR sold the country to China.
    What will happen to next generation if the country bankrupt soon
    Tourism will go down?
    Rupees already lost its values.
    the country lost it reputation..
    what is else you want..
    You want to see anarchy?
    shame on you ..Educated people like should live with principles

    • 17
      4

      Dont take it serious. Dr Fernando has become upside down today.

      He has fully forgotten to respect democracy.

      Elderly man is said to have lived on the west not once but several times.

      But not tohave learnt the least is beyond our comphrehension:

      Why people become to support anti-democratic performances of idiotic president ?

      This man should have pathological reasons to fall down to this levels. I respect all the profs in the world, but I would never agree with them if they too sit with the idiots.

      Dissolution of parliament is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THat is clear to any one read it clearly.

      Those provisions that this so called IDIOTIC professor has been pointing out are though available cant focus in today’s context.

      • 2
        2

        Laksiri,

        How about conferring a double doctorate on Maithripala Silisena?

      • 1
        3

        Prof Laksiri, it is better for you to keep quiet without displaying your ignorance and ending up as a fool. All your effort in distorting the facts have come to zero as the supreme court today declared that dissolution of parliament was unconstitutional and issued an injunction on elections commissioner till 7th of December from making any preparation to hold elections. I heard that MS has asked his crrooked lawyers to find a way to overcome this ruling and dissolve parliament. Let us see what measures MS is going to take to prevent parliament reconvening tomorrow. In the meantime keep on dreaming of getting post of High Commissioner to Australia.

    • 11
      3

      Dr. Laksiri Fernando,

      RE: Constitutionality Of The Dissolution Of Parliament: An Interpretation?

      The interpretation is that Sirisena’s balls are dissolving. Are your are beginning to dissolve as well?

      • 2
        2

        Amarasiri,

        I respected this man – Laksiri Fernando for his previous articles.

        But I have no idea as to why the man is behaving today as if he is too bought by Sirisena.

        Whatever being said and done by Sirisena, Laksiri seems to be supporting him.

        Why ?
        Laksiri Fernando, even if he should have achieved a lot as a Prof.,but the kind of men to twist the mindset of people by their writings is a curseful act.

        • 1
          0

          Simon,

          May be he is getting ready to award an honorary doctorate to the honorary Traitor, Sevalaya, Mala-Pererhaya, Patholaya and PACHAYA, as well.

    • 16
      3

      I wonder whether Rs. 100m to 500m has been offered to “intelectuals” also to write articles distorting the facts and support the illegal decision made by the President to dissolve the Parliament?

      I had lot of respect for you Mr. Laksiri but your sudden change of heart to support the previous dictatorial regime is puzzling me.

      Your current behaviour reminds me a famous sinhalese proverb “Lajja nathikama mahamudali kamatath wadiya lokuilu”
      ” Being shameless is worse than getting the post of Muddliarship (Ambassordor!!!!!!!!!)”

      • 2
        1

        An Oberserver,

        this very same elderly professor, was among the UNI dons, that joined to award DOCTOR titles to bunch of thugs (Rajapkashe brothers).

        They have no shame at all.

    • 9
      0

      CT Reports:

      “NOVEMBER 13, 2018 AUTHOR: COLOMBO TELEGRAPH0 COMMENTS
      Dissolution Invalid: Supreme Court Issues Historic Order Allowing Parliament To Meet Tomorrow”

      Could we move onto something else, something useful, something stimulating, something ……………….

      • 4
        1

        Native Vedda.

        “Could we move onto something else, something useful, something stimulating, something ……………….”

        Yes, it has been moved to dissolving Sirisena’s balls.

        • 2
          1

          Amarasiri

          “Yes, it has been moved to dissolving Sirisena’s balls.”

          in acids imported from China by the national hangman Dr Go.

    • 1
      1

      LFernando ‘s penis and that of Sirisena are tied together.

      That may be the reason Lfernando to see it that way. Else, I don tknow any reason the kind of scholar to turn back and support anti-democrats as a late septagenarian.

      We are ashamed of the kind of low-grade sinhalayas/emeritus profs.

    • 0
      0

      in 1983 who brought the nation to the brink of extintion..? it robbed the best years of our life ..those who lived in Sri Lanka

    • 3
      0

      This fellow Laksiri Fernando much like sirisena will have nowhere to hide his face.

  • 17
    0

    the fact that every tom dick and harry are giving their 5 cents worth clearly shows that the 19th amendment has been badly drafted

    • 12
      1

      Unfortunately for this Constitutional expert from OZ, he doesn’t run the Supreme Court.
      The Court has stayed the dissolution and now we can see who has 113 or not. Laksiri was too quick to jump on the bandwagon and is now in the exalted company of Mervyn Silva, Bandula Gunawardena and “Raththaran”

      We Sri Lankans are the ones who suffer when illiterate idiots grab power forcefully on the advice of self-serving “lawyers”. If these idiots waited another year, they could have won an election legitimately.
      If this happened in Australia, Laksiri would have been locked up by now for sedition. It is very easy to preach from a safe distance to other people about constitutions .

      • 2
        0

        old codger

        How did this happen?
        What is next?
        Does LTTE have anything to do with this crisis?
        Does Tamil Diaspora have anything to do with disrupting the smooth governance of the island?
        How about the Hindians, the West, Tamil Nadu, Martians, mummies of ancient Makhunik, ….. Hobbits, …………..

        “We Sri Lankans are the ones who suffer when illiterate idiots grab power forcefully on the advice of self-serving “lawyers”.

        Or on the advice of self serving academics, analysts, ………………..

      • 0
        0

        Old Codger,
        Laksiri is only interpreting what is in the constitution! There is a major issue in the 19th amendment as to the way it has been drafted! The Supreme Court will look at the contents of the constitution and give a ruling. We should all await the Supreme Court’s ruling without jumping to conclusions.

  • 21
    2

    Laksiri,
    I raised a question to you about why can’t president dissolve the parliament, you said, “president can’t dissolve the parliament until July 2019”.
    It shows clearly that you are dancing according to your partner’s wish irrespective of your own assessment.
    The whole episode of 2015 January change and establishment of the unity government and the 19th amendment was to reduce the executive power or reduce the power of president to minimize the misuse of power. This is the understanding of majority of the people including President Sirisena, you and me.
    The truth of the matter is President Sirisena is a liar, cheater and a dictator. This is a political coup organised by many including you to bring back Mahinda Family. I am sure you will win in this political coup because now even the Judiciary now have to make a decision under threat or under deals.

    • 7
      1

      Ajith

      “I raised a question to you about why can’t president dissolve the parliament, you said, “president can’t dissolve the parliament until July 2019”.

      Please do not put him in a difficult position.
      Now he may have to creatively reinterpret the constitution once again assuming the readership is a complete group of morons. No doubt some of them are.

    • 9
      1

      Dr Laksiri , as confirmed by him, was the main man behind the scene to award honorary degree to Mahinda. Furthermore he was lecturing on human rights to the Armed Forces at Kotalawela Defence Uni. He was so good in his teachings that resulted his obedient students engaged in all sorts of atrocities on Tamils as taught.

    • 9
      0

      Laksiri and Dayan,
      Sorry to hear that you have lost your master brain political coup. Do you want to revisit to find out where it went wrong? Be honest to your conscience!

  • 18
    2

    Here comes another constitutional(or is it constipational) expert. Prof is there a constitution in Lanka to interpret. You have done enough interpretations for us in past. So Prof get an enema and give us a break.Interpretation my foot.

    • 5
      7

      LAKSIRI is the only analyst who is not writing according to his political prejudices, but actually looking at the constitution. In fact, given his close links with the Marxist and Leftist politicians who are now aligned with the Western Neo-Cons, one would have expected him to support the Ranil faction.
      1. But he has taken the Other side, based on his reading of the constitution.
      2. On the other hand, all the Right-wing lawyers take the Ranil side. 3. Similarly, all the sinhala-minded lawyers take the Sirisena side.

      The man Jayampathy W and the people around him who were entrusted with drafting the constitution, 19th amendment etc., should be quartered and hanged for his incompetence. I am told that he tried to do a chemistry degree and failed, and then moved to Law, thinking it is easier, but incompetence shows everywhere, and he has created chaos there.

      They also forgot the supreme court ruling about the 19th amendment, as well as the 7-judge ruling with CJ Sarth Silva heading the group.

      All these technical points seem to support Laksiri Fernando’s interpretation. But let us see how the supreme court will rule.

  • 8
    0

    If Dr Fernando’s interpretation is correct and dissolution is constitutional, then the 19th amendment introducing a minimum term of 4.5 years goes out of the window, for after all, the President can prorogue and dissolve Parliament at anytime – why bother with 4.5 years? To my understanding the purpose of this amendment was to bring in a period of stability which has overarching priority over other linked clauses. One thing very clear is that the quality of drafting of these amendments is an utter embarrassment to our collective intelligence.

    • 0
      0

      Muthubanda, it is very likely the SC did not allow to have an overarching statement when substituting the ’78 version of the Article 70 of the constitution with the amended version, so the drafters had to include an additional sub-article on dissolution powers under 33, Remember it was April 2015, our Siri Bappa was still in the honeymoon phase with Ranila Punchi.

  • 4
    5

    It’s fear, nothing else is the reason for lining up against dissolution of parliament.

    They know very well that people are not with them so want corrupt & weak regime to take the country for another year to get selfish requirements done.

    Result of a dissolution of the parliament paves the way to bring updated people’s choice to power thus stability.

    The previous mandate had been given to the president & RW to march together but their being @ loggerheads paved the way to the dissolution & from the people’s point of view dissolution is the most welcome development.

  • 10
    0

    DR LF,

    Once I thought you are a man who espoused decency and one who wanted nothing but good for Sri Lanka. I am a Tamil and I know that without a solid foundation of the centre and unity and confidence among the Sinhala, the country as a whole will not progress. The minority well-being is completely contingent on this. Moreover, it is common decency and morally zest in wanting the country to succeed. I will only comment on this premise and not based on an interpretation of the constitution.

    You wrote many articles recently giving your views on the constitutionality of the Presidents actions. You ridiculed RW on the strength of your interpretation of the constitution. Whether the constitution is ambiguous or steadfast is not the issue to understand your motives. You never once made any reference to what the 19th Amendment was intended to achieve. You never once mentioned a word about the man, MR, who is being brought back to power who is an epitome of corruption and violence. This man was rejected twice by the electorates yet, you seem to rejoice at the predicament of RW and have no concerns whatsoever about the caliber of a man and his looter-gang gaining power!

    You, as an academic, are incumbent and welcome to give you view on constitutionality of the president’s actions but at the sometime one would have thought you would echo on the political paralyses and defying of common decency in bringing MR and the gang bank to power. This is where I question your academic stance that brings about strong whiffs of stench every time you publish your articles!

    • 1
      0

      Well said

  • 7
    1

    What is the point in your two cents worth of analysis now? Or for that matter of anyone? It is expected that the SC will give a ruling within an hour. If your argument is ruled a TOTAL nonsense, then you have got to plead mia culpa (most likely scenario).
    Why not keep your loose mouth shut and wait for the ruling? That’s the best behaviour expected from an educated person of your calibre Dr Laksri.

  • 5
    0

    why are you jumping the gun…?

  • 5
    1

    Dear Laksiri
    Sir Garfield Barwick (G B) CJ on 10 Nov 1975 who advised John Karr (J K) GG to Dismiss Gough Whitlam (G W) PM
    “Dee Kirata balaluth Sakkilu”
    It is sad that we quote phrases only while volumes are written on the main actors of GW dismissal.
    Sir G B was a partner for the conspiracy of G W’s Dismissal.
    Read Sir G B’s letter addressed to JK on 10 Nov 1975 underlining to dismiss GW as PM if PM fails to secure Supplies. G H’s Budget was not approved in Senate, and S GB says Senate has same legislative powers as house of reps with one exception of originating or amend a money bill
    Immediately after G W was dismissed, at 1.00 pm Senate approved the Budget at 2.15, which was a broad daylight misleading of Government machinery.
    Also the Epilogue pages 354-357 of The Dismissal by Paul Kelly, he says
    Malcolm Fraser moved from a position of respect for J K to one of concealed disdain…..
    Please don’t use Australian names with high sounding titles (they are with blood in their hands) to glorify the characters to impress Sri Lanken readers with your fairy tales. Please read this book I quoted.

  • 4
    0

    I don’t think that we should waste our time and energy and money on this matter any more. Ada Da Rena “Dilka Samanmali” has all the answers for legality of dissolving Parliament. No need Supreme Court decision or Goda Perakadoru like Laksiri Fernando to publish garbage like this on this simple matter. Yesterday at 360 program She spent more time than Vijitha Herath to prove that she is correct on Patholayas decision to dissolve the Parliament.

  • 12
    1

    Dr. Laksiri Fenando

    “There is a certain solid use in fools. It is not so much that they rush in where angels fear to tread, but rather that they let out what devils intend to do.”Chesterton was right. Why do you insist in proving him correct with such passion?

  • 7
    0

    There are provisions relating to the President’s power to appoint a PM and dissolve the Parliament. But dissolving the Parliament should be done in consultation with the Speaker in such a situation or seek an advise from the Supreme Court. Therefore dissolution of Parliament in such a precarious situation is illegal.

  • 7
    0

    If the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was poorly drafted, then you must interpret it according to the intent of those who proposed it and passed it. Its intention was to curb the powers of the President who earlier enjoyed the freedom of the wild ass to wield his power recklessly, even whimsically and to fulfill his personal agenda.

  • 0
    0

    Procedure and Powers of the Legislature

    Provisions of constitution article is against provisions of constitution another article
    Constitution is who writes a 10,000-word document and calls it a brief. and twist for the benefit
    what ever music you play ill dance

  • 7
    1

    Eat your words Dr. Laksiri Fernando…SC rules dissolution of the Parliament is illegal.

    • 0
      0

      Rajash where in which universe, in the parallel one you inhabit?

      • 1
        0

        wannihami

        The one that is parallel to yours where earth is part of it.

  • 7
    0

    Hi Professora. Your spinning the yarn is no use. PC Kanag-Isvaran played one tape to the judges, and the whole case gone topsy and tipsy for Shitsena, MR and goons. In this tape, in the parliament, GL says, after 19th amendment, the President’s both hands are tied tightly until four and half years to dissolve the parliament. Now match over for MR and Shitsena, democracy and rule of law won the day. We Salute the Judges for saving the country from brute lawlessness, and up holding the rule of law.

  • 3
    0

    70.1 explicitly states the only conditions by which Parliament may be dissolved are: 4.5 years and 2/3rd vote by MPs.

    70.3.(ii) allows dissolving by proclamation if Parliament is prorogued – subject to provisions of the article.

    You say: “It cannot possibly be about 70 (1) and ‘two thirds majority’ because the Parliament is dissolved.” <– I believe you mean 'prorogued', not 'dissolved'.

    70.1 identifies two states of Parliament – before 4.5 years and after 4.5 years.

    Why have you discounted the state of 'after 4.5 years' during which the President may dissolve Parliament at any time?

    It would seem to me that 70.3.(ii) would apply if Parliament is prorogued after 4.5 years. Dissolving can thus be done any time in this state.

    • 1
      0

      Rizwan,
      You make a valid point with respect article 70.3.{ii}, when the Parliament is prorogued after 4,5 years, a situation that the author has overlooked.

  • 10
    0

    Dear Author and all participants,
    Here is a Learned Sri Lankan who will be happy even if the President declares war with a neighboring Country because he is President and the Constitution says so. He doesn’t care the situation in the Country. For him President has to do everything he can do according to the Constitution even if he goes mad! Parliament and Parliamentarians simply need to just listen to the President. Do you all understand the reason for Sri Lanka to go down the drain. From the time of independence to date this is what is going on in Sri Lanka. While all the Asian Countries struggled to be self sufficient and developed, Sri Lankan Leaders got notoriously busy ruining the Country. Perhaps with the help of this kind of advisors and executives working for perks. You all have the common sense and past experience to understand why the Yahapalanaya Government was formed just a few years back. The Parliamentarians show a change for the good after a long exposure to the outside world and the world has become transparent with advanced technology of today. It doesn’t take long to expose this kind of a Leader as you can see around the world.

  • 7
    0

    The Supreme Court has put a halt at least temporarily making an interim order against the dissolution of the parliament. It shows there is merit in the petitions filed against the dissolution of the parliament by the UNP, TNA, JVP and SLMC. If it is claimed that President can dissolve parliament at any time can he dissolve the parliament as soon it meets after a general election? If the electorate returns, say UNP, with a majority in parliament, but not to the liking the President can he dissolve parliament after proroguing same within a few days/weeks?
    What is the intention of parliament when it passed almost unanimously the 19th Amendment? Is it not to reduce the powers of the President? Did not Sirisena boast that he is the only President to voluntarily give up executive powers?

  • 6
    0

    The Supreme Court has suspended the presidential order to dissolve parliament. It shows there is merit in the petitions filed against dissolution by the UNP, TNA, JVP and SLMC. If it is claimed that President can dissolve parliament at any time he wishes by proroguing parliament. Does this mean the can he dissolve the parliament as soon it meets after a general election? If the electorate returns, say UNP, with a majority in parliament, but not to the liking the President can he dissolve parliament after proroguing same within a few days/weeks?
    The court will have to consider the intention of parliament when it passed almost unanimously the 19th Amendment? Is it not to reduce the powers of the President? Did not Sirisena himself boasts that he is the only President to voluntarily give up executive powers?

  • 7
    4

    Hoo Hoo Hoo, Laksiri. fortunately for us, we still have a wise supreme court!

  • 7
    2

    Lackey F
    Keep reading the rule book until you get it. Meanwhile, the match is over and the people are partying.

  • 1
    0

    Some useful, constructive comments and lots of personal vitriol, as usual. Looking at the various clauses, purely from a lay persons point of view, it does not appear that the President can dissolve Parliament for four and a half years unless the Parliament itself asks for it., a motion of no confidence is passed against a government or the budget is defeated. I think the President has been misled. The current supreme court ruling is a temporary halt to the dissolution allowing all the FR petitions to be heard and a final determination given. We should be happy that the Supreme Court has acted this way. Their final decision might still be that the President has the constitutional power to dissolve Parliament going on the basis of interpretations. But I doubt it.

  • 2
    0

    Joker LF, the game is over. Start educating yourself on the constitution. . Also you need to increase your understanding and knowledge of the English Language. From which banana republic did you get your qualifications.

  • 0
    0

    “Careful examination and interpretation of Article 33 (particularly section 2 (c )) and Article 70 (particularly section 3 (ii)) show there is no constitutional impediment for the President to dissolve Parliament under the conditions of prorogation. “

    Dr. Laksiri Fernando, I have disagreed with your views in the past, but here we have a refreshing and objective view of the situation concerning the dissolving of Parliament.

    Unfortunately, the country is very partisan, where one side will call the SC decision ‘a victory for democracy’ if they rule in favour of their party.

    Hypocrites!

    Politics in Sri Lanka is very partisan – think of your party, your community, your religion, and try to obtain power to push your agenda through based on your interests. That is not constitutional or democratic, there are two parties and other people in this country whose views must be heard and also tolerated, and accepted.

  • 2
    0

    So long Prof, for your interpretation. Go back to sleep. Next vital questions for all Lankans should be who made this guy a Prof and those who are responsible should be impeached too.

  • 4
    0

    Lacky Fernando, why not confer a Double Doctor title on MS? Just like how you conferred on MR and Gota?

  • 2
    0

    ado hoo

  • 3
    1

    Rizwan is right. Article 70.1 is very much relevant. The power to dissolve parliament is vested in the President subject to two limitations.

    (1) Not before the expiry of four years and 6 months;
    (2) If a resolution is passed in the parliament with a two-thirds majority of 150 members.

    Also, the President can dissolve parliament AFTER four years and 6 months.

    It is stupid on the part of Dr.Laksiri Fernando to say Article 70.1 is not relevant. If it is not relevant why it is there in the constitution.

    Anyway, the SC has given an interim order which shows there is merit in the applications filed by the petitioners. If it is not, the SC would have dismissed the petitions in toto.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.