21 May, 2019

Blog

Judiciary Played A Crucial Role In Halting Sirisena’s March To Constitutional Dictatorship

By Veluppillai Thangavelu

Veluppillai Thangavelu

The high tech drama began on the night of October 26, at 8.30 pm. President Sirisena to everyone surprise appointed his arch-foe Mahinda Rajapaksa, MP as Prime Minister. On the following day, he fired off a letter to Prime Minister Wickremesinghe informing him that he has removed from his office of Prime Minister in virtue of powers vested in him in terms of Article 44 (2) of the constitution. President Sirisena did not know that Article 44(2) does not apply to a sitting Prime Minister. It applies to the appointment of a Prime Minister after the elections. However, President Sirisena claimed that he had been advised by “legal experts” that he does have powers under 44 (2) to dismiss a sitting Prime Minister.

In between the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa on the 26th October and dismissal of Ranil Wickremesinghe on 27th October, there were two Prime Ministers! Not long after the country had no Prime Minister, Ministers or government until Ranil Wickremesinghe took his oaths following the judgment of a seven-member bench of the Supreme Court on December 13th.

Following the parliamentary elections held on August 17, 2015, the incumbent United National Party (UNP) led United National Front for Good Governance (UNFGG) won 106 seats, an increase of 46 since the 2010 election, but failed to secure a majority in Parliament. The main opposition United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) won 95 seats, a decline of 49 seats. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the largest party representing Sri Lankan Tamils, won 16 seats, an increase of two compared to 2010. The remaining eight seats were won by Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (6), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (1) and Eelam People’s Democratic Party (1).

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, leader of the UNFGG and UNP, was able to form a national government with the support of UPFA MPs loyal to President Maithripala Sirisena.

One of the landmark pieces of legislation enacted by the national government was the 19th Amendment (19A) to the Constitution on 28 April 2015. It was passed by the 225-member Sri Lankan Parliament with 215 voting in favour, one against, one abstained and seven absent. The Amendment envisaged the stripping of many powers of the Executive Presidency, which had been in force since 1978.  It is the most radical reform ever applied to the 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka enacted by JR Jayawardhane in 1978. He became the first Executive President of Sri Lanka in 1978.

Differences between President Sirisena and Prime Minister began to surface after the formation of the national government. The long-simmering uneasy relationship between the President and Prime Minister over government policies became more acrimonious beginning from 2018. The President accused the Prime Minister of not investigating an alleged plot by Nalaka de Silva, the former DIG of the Terrorist Investigation Division (TID) to assassinate several VIPs, including him, Though the DIG Nalakka de Silva he was cleared initially of any wrongdoing was subsequently arrested by the CID on Thursday, October 26, one day before Rajapaksa was sworn in as Prime Minister.

The arrest was made during his interrogation by the CID which had questioned him on five separate days over the alleged plot.

A man named Namal Kumara in mid-September disclosed the alleged plot implicating Nalakka de Silva. Kumara has claimed that Silva had discussed the plot with him over phone targeting Sirisena and Rajapaksa.

After the swearing in of Rajapaksa by President Sirisena, the country plunged into a stormy and turbulent constitutional crisis day and night. Here is the timeline:

October 27 – President Sirisena prorogues Parliament until November 16. He issued a formal notice for Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to step down. Same day Prime Minister Wickremesinghe addresses the Nation refusing to step down. He said only Parliament can remove him.

October 29 – President Sirisena address the nation. He claimed “I noted that there were also differences of culture between Mr Wickremesinghe and me. I believe that all those differences in policy, culture, personality and conduct aggravated this political and economic crisis.

October 30 – Speaker Karu Jayasuriya made a ‘kind request’ to President Maithripala Sirisena to reconvene Parliament to “prevent the country from falling into a crisis” following requests made by the UNP, ITAK, JVP. SLMC MPs to safeguard the privileges and rights of the MPs and establish a majority in Parliament.

November 02 – 119 MPs from several parties met and passed a resolution calling for an immediate convention of Parliament claiming that the removal of the Prime Minister and the appointment of another was unconstitutional.

November 08 – President Sirisena met with Tamil National Alliance (TNA) delegation.  He told the TNA parliamentary group that he would not reappoint UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister even if his party secured a majority in Parliament. He asked the TNA to abstain at voting time.  The TNA told Sirisena it had taken a decision to vote against the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister.

November 09 – President Sirisena dissolved Parliament amid a political crisis following his attempt to replace Sri Lanka’s prime minister. The dissolution took effect from midnight on Friday. A general election was fixed for January 05, 2019.

November 12 –  Twelve Fundamental Right petitions were submitted to the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka challenging the president’s decree sacking parliament and calling a snap election, by the UNP, TNA, JVP, SLMC and others demanding the restoration of status quo prevailing prior to 26 October. These were taken up for hearing on the same day by a three-member bench of the Supreme Court. Responding to the petitions, Attorney General Jayantha Jayasuriya made submissions stating that “the court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the Fundamental Rights petitions against the dissolution of Parliament”. On the same day, 5 petitions by Prof G. L. Peiris, Minister Udaya Gammanpila, Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara and two others supporting the dissolution of parliament were filed at the Supreme Court. However, in the evening the three Judge bench issued an interim order till 7th December staying the proclamation issued by President Sirisena to dissolve parliament and granted leave to precede with the Fundamental Rights petitions that challenged the President’s dissolving parliament.

November 13 – The Supreme Court gives a stay order preventing Prime Minister Rajapaksa and his Ministers from holding office heightening the island’s political drama and drawing an immediate vow to appeal the decision by Mahinda Rajapaksa. Same day the Speaker office said that Parliament would convene on 14 November as per the gazette issued by President Sirisena.

November 14 – No confidence motion passed by parliament against Mahinda Rajapaksa.

November 16 – Second no-confidence motion supported by 122 MPs passed by parliament against Mahinda Rajapaksa.

December 13 – Supreme Court declares dissolution of Parliament unconstitutional.  The Court ruled that President Sirisena’s decision to dissolve the Parliament 20 months before the end of its term was unconstitutional. A full (seven-judge) bench unanimously ruled on that the President cannot dissolve Parliament until it completes a four-and-a-half year term. The court also said the President’s decision to call snap elections was illegal.

December 14 – Mahinda Rajapaksa said he would relinquish his claim to be Prime Minister and would back down after an address to the nation on Saturday

December 14 – Supreme Court refused to issue an interim order vacating the earlier interim order of the Court of Appeal restricting the functions of the Prime Minister’s office, the matter was set down for hearing in mid-January 2019. Following this decision, Prime Minister Rajapaksa indicated his intention to resign.

December 15 – Ranil Wickremesinghe re-appointed as Prime Minister for the 5th time thus ending the constitutional deadlock that lasted for 51 days.

The constitutional deadlock centred around two Articles in the constitution, Viz, Article 23, le 33(2)(c)  and  the stand alone Article (70.1)  that prohibits the President from dissolving the parliament before 4 years and 6 months or on a 2/3 majority vote in the  Parliament at any time. The  submissions made by MA Sumanthiran, PC  and Kanag-Iswaran, PC  who appeared for the first  Petitioner R. Sampanthan before the Supreme Court unscrambled the legal issues. M.A. Sumanthiran was at his best. To the surprise of everyone, he explained the legal texts that few seemed aware of. He began citing Artice23 (1) of the Constitution. The following are excerpts from Sumanthiran’s submissions –

23.(1)All laws and subordinate legislation shall be enacted or made and published in Sinhala and Tamil, together with a translation thereof in English.

Provided that Parliament shall, at the stage of enactment of any law determine which text shall prevail in the event of any inconsistency between texts: Provided further that in respect of all other written laws and the text in which such written laws were enacted or adopted or made, shall prevail in the event of any inconsistency between such texts.

English is not mentioned because all legislation is drafted in English. It is the language that matters. No matter that the Tamil and Sinhalese versions are in conflict, it is the English that reflects the true intentions of the drafters because it is the language in which it is drafted. That is why the proviso in 23(1) says,

“Provided further that in respect of all other written laws and the text in which such written laws were enacted or adopted or made, shall prevail in the event of any inconsistency between such texts.”

Sumanthiran emphasized that the word text rather than language had been used. Drafters and judges work with English. That is why no one had noticed that the Sinhalese version of Article 70 had an extra sentence. Sumanthiran used the Interpretation Section of the Constitution, Section 170, to show the definition of laws:

“Existing law” and “existing written law” mean any law and written law, respectively, in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution which under the Constitution continues in force;

1) Article 33(2)(c)

(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 – (c) to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament;

2) Article 62(2)

(2) Unless Parliament is sooner dissolved, every Parliament shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer, and the expiry of the said period of five years shall operate as dissolution of Parliament.

3) Article 70, particularly sub-article 1

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

The word harmonious interpretation of all sections, everyone agreed was essential. However, agreement stopped there. The Petitioners insisted that their interpretation was wholesome and harmonious. Article 33(2)(c) said the President had the power to dissolve Parliament. Article 62(2) said the normal period of a Parliament is 5 years but it may be dissolved sooner. Article 70 said any dissolution by the President can be only after the first 4.5 years or after a resolution by 2/3 of members. Article 70 in its subsequent sub-sections states what the President has to do in case he decided to dissolve Parliament – such fixing a date for elections etc. There is no inconsistency. This interpretation is harmonious.

The Respondents on the other hand, see these as standalone sections. Article 33(2)(c) lets the president dissolve Parliament any time. Article 62 in saying “Unless Parliament is sooner dissolved” means it may be dissolved any time before 5 years are up. Article 70 is stand alone, telling the President what he as to do when dissolving. They did not explain why they use a part of 70, while ignoring Section 70 (1) setting the 4.5-year minimum period.

Though Wickremesinghe has regained his title the worrying between President Sirisena is far from over, The latter has vowed to assert his authority and shape the government on his terms. In additional to the 3 portfolios vested in him including Ministry of Defence, he has grabbed the Ministry of Law and Order, including Police under his wrap,

Though Sirisena said he is a one term President and he will retire from politics after that, he found his job very enticing. The power that came with his office too was tempting to be given up. But the fact the UNP/UNF announced Wickremesinghe as their next presidential candidate dashed the hopes of Sirisena to run again. Hence, his decision to join forces with Rajapaksa hoping that the latter will support him, Today he finds himself having burnt the candle on booth ends.

In a way, the political marriage between Sirisena and Wickremasinghe was a mis-match. It is like giving a Sinhala only girl from the rustic Polonnaruwa to an English educated elite wealthy groom from Colombo 7. It is, therefore, small wonder the marriage ended in divorce.  And politically, the conflict between the two remains unresolved.

Who is the villain in this  drama? Villain is defined “a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel; or a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot”. It is certainly President Sirisena. Addressing a SLFP electoral organizers meeting, President Sirisena proclaimed that he would not allow a federal state for the Tamils or merger of the North and East provinces. Reportedly, he had stated that “he would have to be killed” before this happens.  Earlier he said that the Sinhalese abhor the word ‘federal’ and the Tamils the word ’unitary’ so we have to draw a constitution that will be acceptable to both Sinhalese and Tamils.  Therefore, the Tamils who voted for him felt betrayed. He came to power on the promise guaranteeing reconciliation, democracy and good governance. His actions dismissing the Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and installing Rajapaksa, dissolving parliament all on the advice his “legal experts” damaged his image beyond repair.

The role of TNA who kept the balance of power between the two also deserves praise. Their principled stand to uphold the constitution and the law of the law of the country earned them praise by the progressive sections of the Sinhalese people and the foreign diplomatic community. Politics should be based on moralprinciples, and not idealities.

Now, who is the hero? It is certainly the Judiciary consisting of both the Supreme Court and the Appeal Court. Both institutions whose image was badly dented in the past by the likes of Sarath N Silva and Mohan Peiris have regained their past glory.

The Judiciary has played a crucial role in halting President Sirisena’s march to constitutional dictaroship like his predecessors.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 2
    3

    Happy tities????

    • 4
      0

      Dear Velupillai Thangavelu and All who defend 19A
      .
      Some took a Principled and Informed stand
      Some thought they were taking a Principled stand
      Some put party before country
      Yet others succumbed to “Herd Behaviour” and went with the Mob
      .
      Our Constitution, unlike that of USA (7 Articles 4p), is complex and never explained to the people clause by clause. It remains Greek to over 99%. Even the Legal Fraternity is divided.
      .
      Let’s analyze, Clause 4 Article 4 (a)
      The legislative power of the people shall be exercised by Parliament, consisting of Elected representatives of the people and by the People at a Referendum
      .
      It recognises TWO types of MPs.
      1. Elected
      2. Appointed
      .
      It DECREES that Legislative Power SHALL be Exercised in two ways.
      1. By Parliament consisting of Elected Representative of the People
      2. By the PEOPLE at a Referendum.
      https://www.colombotelegraph.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/SC-SD-4-to-19-of-2015.pdf

      • 3
        0

        Continued Clause 4 Article 4 (a)
        .
        It specifically disqualifies Appointed MPs from Voting for legislation
        .
        Then why have them in Parliament?
        .
        The Aim (as I see it) is to bring into Parliament Experts from various fields who would otherwise shy away from politics.
        .
        They form the “Knowledge Bank” whose participation enriches debates to help the Elected MPs arrive at informed decisions.
        .
        There are 29 appointed MPs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointed_and_National_List_Member_of_Parliament)
        Hence 99 of 196 elected MPs must vote in favour to pass legislation. ANY legislation that falls short is Unconstitutional and perhaps has no force in Law.
        .
        I am not a lawyer and have interpreted the language to the best of my ability.
        What do you have to say?
        .
        Can an erudite Constitutional Lawyer explain it for the benefit of all.

    • 1
      0

      Dear Velupillai Thangavelu,
      .
      Let’s examine the original 19A. What was it like?
      It had RTI and the CC (the sugar coat)
      It also had in clause 26 paragraph 104B(5)(c) a dastardly and undemocratic attempt to GAG both the State and Private Media. In Clause 11, the PM (RW) made a surreptitious attempt to usurp the powers of the President for himself (the poison).
      .
      Luckily for Lanka, the SC saw through RW’s cunning attempt at becoming a dictator and struck these down by stating it required approval by the people at a referendum.
      .
      But the Question is, why would a Democratic govt led by the self-professed savior of Democracy, RW, even contemplate such draconian undemocratic laws?
      .
      What do you have to say sir?
      .
      The first SC ruling is available here
      https://www.colombotelegraph.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/SC-SD-4-to-19-of-2015.pdf

      • 1
        0

        Thank you MININ finally there is another person who actually has read this. I plan to broadcast this in the social media so that the rabid followers of 20th A and the cunning drafters of the same will not take us on the garden path again.

  • 6
    4

    Thank you and best wishes for 2019. You lot saved the country by rejecting the two ‘Cardboard Hitlers’, and as Sri Lankans we are indebted to all of you for doing so. May you all be well, happy, peaceful and free from suffering!. “Dammo Haway Rakkhathi Dammachaaree”

  • 7
    2

    Sir you just forgot to mention the most important thing. MS cannot read in ENGLISH. He read the Sinhala version but not the original in English.The experts who advised MS ( Sarath, Mohan, GLP) think ” Constitution are to violate and not to read”.

  • 4
    0

    President movement MR acceptance of the surprise appointed unfounded attempt in the constitution without any Debate and Compromise, This is due lack of understanding. He gave life to UNP which had a sign/looked like or camouflaged him of attempting to economic suicide, What about the international agreements how authentics is it the clauses and terms have to be reserved or verified, Since President claimed that he had been advised by “legal experts”and still he failed.

  • 10
    5

    All credit should go to The (Right) Honourable Nalin Perera, Chief Justice. He stood as a shining example of independence and impartiality. This particular interim order by SC followed by the historic verdict were delivered entirely based on his personal strength, which may have given confidence to other judges in the Court of Appeal, too.
    There is a Paper by late Justice C.G Weeramantry in which he has mentioned 6 values in judiciary (that are necessary to strengthening the “Third Arm of our Constitution.” – my words) which are; 1. Independence. 2. Impartiality. 3. Integrity. 4. Propriety. 5. Equality. 6. Competence and diligence.
    In the meantime, a lot more could be done in terms of court administration and ensuring easy access to justice by ordinary citizens.
    Today, many ordinary people cannot afford justice, which is not fair. There are hundreds of thousands cases pending. Something has to be done to speed up the process. I have some suggestions which require political backing. But, I have no faith in the current political leadership. How could I trust them when the President decided to appoint 2 of his coolies (there could be more) as Presidential Counsels?. One particular lawyer even has a court case who was arrested when he was in possession of Kurundu Polu and a shot gun while taking part in a political protest. In any other country, his license to practice would have been cancelled. I understand that these PCs can later become judges. Can anybody expect them to be fair and independent? Judges should be appointed based on merit, and not based on political affiliation.

    • 2
      0

      All credit should go to The (Right) Honourable Nalin Perera, Chief Justice. He stood as a shining example of independence and impartiality. This particular interim “order by SC followed by the historic verdict were delivered entirely based on his personal strength, which may have given confidence to other judges in the Court of Appeal, too.
      There is a Paper by late Justice C.G Weeramantry in which he has mentioned 6 values in judiciary (that are necessary to strengthening the “Third Arm of our Constitution.” – my words) which are; 1. Independence. 2. Impartiality. 3. Integrity. 4. Propriety. 5. Equality. 6. Competence and diligence.
      In the meantime, a lot more could be done in terms of court administration and ensuring easy access to justice by ordinary citizens.”

      Referring the above quote of yours, dear Champa, in my experience I have not experienced above qualities attributable to His Lordship Mr. Nalin Perera even though it was highly expected from him.

  • 5
    1

    Thank you Veluppillai Thangavelu for the account of what happened from 26 October onwards.
    .
    On 09 November, MS dissolved Parliament because he genuinely believed that he had the power.
    The matter was taken to the Supreme Court who decided that the dissolution was illegal. The ‘for and against’ arguments were through and extensive.
    .
    Let the passions subside Velupillai Thangavelu. It is not fair to say “Judiciary Played A Crucial Role In Halting Sirisena’s March To Constitutional Dictatorship”.
    MS is not a dictator. He has compromised a lot. Dictators never do!
    By the way, are we not in a dictatorship for quite a while?
    .
    Our Constitution is written in Legalese and both sides want to exploit for personal benefit.
    JVP says that appointing more than 35 ministers is a violation.
    Should the Constitution be rewritten in simple language?

  • 2
    2

    “Therefore, the Tamils who voted for him felt betrayed. “
    Where or when did Sirisena or RW ever say that they will deliver federalism that the Tamils feel betrayed now for voting? To my knowledge, they never promised more than the existing unitary structure nor did they promise accountability. Even if changes are to be made to the constitution, they will have to get majority support to pass, which is unlikely. If Tamils were led to believe that there is something going to come through the engagement with Sinhalese ruling establishment, then they were taken for a ride by those who led them to believe that, namely the TNA. Reconcilliation in Sri Lanka has primarily been a foreign policy matter.

  • 9
    0

    This was a constitutional ‘coup de pouce’! It gave a nudge to the lethargic political climate in Sri Lanka. The UNP woke up from their day-dreaming and the SLPP with SLFP strengthened their ties to face the UNP. The outcome is interesting.
    1. Mahinda got his long-awaited Opposition leadership. UNP should have done it long time ago but it conspired with ‘some forces’ and handed it over to TNA and JVP. Did they succeed? NO. At the end, Mahinda got what he wanted.
    2. Ranil has been compelled to rethink about his ability to lead the party and the country as PM.
    3. Ranil lost his 2/3rd majority in parliament unexpectedly. Now his is a minority government. Without TNA’s support it could collapse any moment.
    4. SLPP succeeded in creating an unbridgeable rift between Ranil’s UNP and Maithree (they are now at each other’s throat like ‘Naya (Cobra) and Mukatiya (Mongoose)’.
    5. Now Mahinda can keep cool and go on vacation, until the next election since Ranil’s government is busy struggling to survice on a daily basis and facing a foe within. President Sirisena who is extremely critical of Ranil and his UNP is watching like an eagle. Hereafter, the cabinet would rarely say ‘Oh! today it was business as usual.’
    6. TNA lost everything from its reputation among Tamils to Opposition leadership.

  • 1
    1

    When I wrote “Therefore the Tamils who voted for him felt betrayed” I had in mind many other issues other than federalism. The Tamils wanted a clean government free of corruption, bribery nepotism, waste, jumbo cabinet etc. But none of these materialised, though governance was better compared to the days under Mahinda Rajapaksa.
    Sirisena’s first two years was tolerably good. His simplicity, manner of speaking, getting into the refugee camp of a Tamil resident in Jaffna, all these endured him to the Tamils. But things took a dramatic turn in his third year. He was seen trying to defend the armed forces to the hilt. According to him the armed forces never committed any crimes. He will not allow any member of the armed forces arraigned before the courts. He was amiss that high ranking members of the armed forces like Ravindra Wijegunaratne, Dayananda Hettiarachchi and few others were arrested and charged in courts. President Sirisena seemed to forget or gloss over the fact that these officers have been charged for abduction and murder of 11 Tamil youths in 2008. These crimes were committed outside the war theatre. And therefore his drawing a  comparison of these killers with the Tamil prisoners incarcerated in jails without charges or trial is without merit.  Because of his stance, his standing among the Tamils has hit rock bottom. Between Rajapaksa and Sirisena Tamils see no difference. Both are perceived as  Sinhala – Buddhist chauvinists.
    As for federalism, labels have lost their original meaning.

  • 1
    1

    When I wrote “Therefore the Tamils who voted for him felt betrayed” I had in mind many other issues other than federalism. The Tamils wanted a clean government free of corruption, bribery nepotism, waste, jumbo cabinet etc. But none of these materialised, though governance was better compared to the days under Mahinda Rajapaksa.
    Sirisena’s first two years was tolerably good. His simplicity, manner of speaking, getting into the refugee camp of a Tamil resident in Jaffna, all these endured him to the Tamils. But things took a dramatic turn in his third year. He was seen trying to defend the armed forces to the hilt. According to him the armed forces never committed any crimes. He will not allow any member of the armed forces arraigned before the courts. He was amiss that high ranking members of the armed forces like Ravindra Wijegunaratne, Dayananda Hettiarachchi and few others were arrested and charged in courts. President Sirisena seemed to forget or gloss over the fact that these officers have been charged for abduction and murder of 11 Tamil youths in 2008. These crimes were committed outside the war theatre. And therefore his drawing a comparison of these killers with the Tamil prisoners incarcerated in jails without charges or trial is without merit. Because of his stance, his standing among the Tamils has hit rock bottom. Between Rajapaksa and Sirisena Tamils see no difference. Both are perceived as Sinhala – Buddhist chauvinists. 1/2

  • 1
    3

    As for federalism, labels have lost their original meaning. UK is a unitary state, but Scotland has the right to secede after a referendum. India is a federal state, but regional states have no right to recede. So what the Tamils are interested is substance not form. Tamils demand is regional autonomy in a united and undivided country. Such an arrangement is good for the Tamils, but better for the Sinhalese. The North and East could be turned into an economic powerhouse if the right atmosphere, both political and economic, is created. Size if not a problem. For instance, before the war, the Myliddy fishermen accounted for 1/3rd of the total catch in the Island.
    What we are missing is a visionary like Lee Kuan Yew, the leader who created the modern miracle of Singapore of the 20th century. If Lee wanted he could have declared Chinese Mandarin as the official language spoken by 75% of the population and Buddhism the state religion like the Bandaranaikes and Jayawardenes. He did not do such foolish things. The Singapore that Lee created in his 31 years as prime minister, from 1959 to 1990, was the embodiment of the globalized economy that brought immense wealth to Asia. Today Singaporeans enjoy a per capita income of USD 93,300 (PPP) compared to Sri Lanka USD 12,700 (PPP). The interesting factor is the city-state of Singapore is only 721.5 km² about 2/3rd the size of Jaffna district (1025 km²).
    The Sinhalese people must revolt against their leaders who are exploiting race and religion to capture political power! Happy Xmas.2/2

    • 4
      1

      Thanga, my man, You want equality, democracy, devolution of power and you want the vision of Lee Kuan Yew, what kind of hypocrisy is that? Lee Kuan Yew repressed the opposition, he divided resources according to majoritism and if he was the dictator of SL he would have asked either all the Tamils to move to the NP or more likely get the population ratio corrected in NP by moving Sinhalese there.

      • 2
        1

        Dear wannihami,

        You are absolutely right about Lee Kuan Yew and the Housing Policy of Singapore. Even a High Rise Apartment block maintains the National Ethnic Ratio. If you own an apartment and want to sell it, you can only sell it to a person outside your race, only if the National Ethnic Ratio is not disturbed in that building by that sale.
        .
        After 1969 Singapore did not see any Race Riot.
        They have been free of Race Rioting for two decades
        Should we not emulate them?

        • 2
          0

          MININ Perera, at last someone knows and states what went on in Singapore when that Tiger rose, I too think we should emulate them, and a National Ethnic Ratio maintained in all districts. Ghettos are the worst enemy pf ethnic harmony.

  • 3
    2

    We have to stop the postmortem of post October’ 26 and look at the next phase.
    Yes it;s Judiciary, yes its TNA, yes its JVP, yes its peace loving people of Sri Lanka.

    In my view little has changed in the corrupt political class.
    What is changed is that Mahinda wanted the key to the safe ..so he decides how to share the loot…
    Ranil in his bond scam was not sharing the loot to the liking of Mahinda…but he wants to hold on the the key to the loot…

    Mahinda does it in a open and brutal manner…Ranil does it slowly slowly…

  • 1
    0

    There is nothing called a Constitutional Dictatorship – there cannot be – it will be a classic oxymoron.

    It is nothing but a common or garden putsch perpetrated by a set of pernicious and odious family

  • 2
    0

    Oh, Sir Ivor Jennings, If you were only alive to explain the constitution to all these jokers

  • 6
    2

    Everything you have touched on is irrelevant when the Tsunami is about to hit the Sinhala Establishment from the US. MRs cousin is facing 5 counts of Frauad and faces a long Jail Term. GOTHA is an American citizen and I dont know about Basil but MR is the Top Target who evaded the net so far. No dout MRs cousin will spill the beans to get a reduced term and GOTHA will will be ordered to return to US to face Justice for Genocide. MR wil face a Travel Ban and just like ( Milosevich) and Sancations will be imposed to hand over MR. Justice would have been meted our for CRIMES committed.

  • 2
    0

    Most of the Weluppillai’ s information are correct. For me real hero is general public who come forward to fight for the right. Court order is noble but that is their job. Some politicians acted responsibly but that is what people expect from them.
    So far judges have not revealed any kind of pressure enforced by any party or a nature of any kind of threat for their life. I personally do not know was there a possibility that judges could have given a wrong interpretation to the constitution hence they could have given a verdict that president is right. If they gave a wrong verdict then the hero is president?
    Anyhow I hope people use this opportunity to work as a team to restore the democracy.

    • 5
      2

      Perera
      Perera

      For me real hero is general public who come forward to fight for the right.

      *** Sorry to disappoint you. The public are not behind you they are behind MR . If you hold an election now MR will sweep the board with a landslide . He knows how to please the Sinkalams. Hope you noticed that he did not comment on the Skeltons found in Mannar which he buried but shedding crocodile tears for the flood victims in Mannar by asking this goverment to pour money to help. But if he was in power would have turned a blind eye.

      • 2
        0

        Kali you are very true. As long as we see through different glasses (religion,language, nationality,cast etc) we do not see the true picture. It is our responsibility to break those evil layers, change ourselves first and lead others to do the right. Be positive and start from you and me.

      • 1
        1

        kali,
        .
        Can’t you see that there are huge contradictions in what you say?

      • 1
        0

        Dear Kali,
        .
        I was hoping that you would see the contradictions in what you have written above, but since you haven’t come back to me, let me enumerate them at much greater length.
        .
        I agree that the public are “behind Rajapaksa”. But at the same time you see them as the real heroes who have come forward. What is this undefined “right”?
        .
        You agree that there are lots of buried skeletons in Mannar (right here in Sri Lanka, as a result of killings of humans by Rajapaksa himself).
        .
        You yourself grant that it is “crocodile tears” (i.e. a bogus concern that will soon be forgotten) that Rajapaksa is shedding for flood victims in Mannar. He does that because he is not in power and can just say that certain things have to be done – but not by himself; had he been in a position (of power) he would have “turned a blind eye.”
        .
        What clinches the contradictions is your saying that Rajapaksas “knows how to please people”. In other words you are saying that Rajapaksa is merely clever at misleading the people, who therefore must be thought of as idiots, although you started by saying that they are the “real hero”.
        .
        Isn’t this all a muddle?

  • 0
    1

    The verdict of SC 7 members of Judges has gone wrong of calcification and vilification of 19 amendment of Republic Constitution was by wrong reading by pressures of Colombo Western Embassies lobbying against Sovereignty of Law of Land.
    While my issue is that highest court verdict that we cannot accepts because it denied and rejected that Right to Vote and elected their represtattives to New Parliament exercise by Universal Franchised by
    Sri Lankans.
    The Judgment seems to be working of that Neo Liberalism legal order of day which has lost independence we won 1948 was that shifted to come empty on deeds . The law of land cannot ignore right to vote is key principle of survival of democracy .

    If that SC Judges are blind on the change of situation has NOT taken into account needed to recficity by Will of majority new mandate in future.
    The such reading having orthodox line of mindset. That judgment is outdated of luminaries of lawyers and judges are in not study politics of parties and how system corrupted by order of legitimacy Democracy has ignored by court of law Sri lanka.

    We have to have new innovation of Legal Order by ousted old order of colonial mentality of reading.
    The proposed that “New” republic Constitional by new democratic alliance suggest by UNP of RW+CBK that UNP,TNA and JVP, politics of that anti-establishment politics .
    They are moving against by current trend of majority people will ; that change of emerging forces of Tamil of Federalist state while partition of an Island by Tamil Eelam puppet regime installed by UNP leadership ? What a “constitutional halt for dictatorship ” by SC Judges ?

  • 0
    0

    Does Piyadasa Yalagala want elections every year? The present parliament was elected for a period of 5 years in 2015. It is therefore fair that the parliament is allowed to complete its term. The elections to the LGAA is different from elections to parliament. The former is mostly regarding local issues like water, electricity, roads, sewerage etc. The latter is about the governance at the macro level. like taxation, foreign policy, infrastructure, monetary policy etc. So don’t compare apples with oranges.

  • 0
    0

    Thanga comment……!
    Needless to say above commenter that may be UNP supporter, who has been member of that think-tank an advice for Neo Liberal legal order in -out of UNP pool team that of right-wing ladders?
    While every year that UNP leaders no idea for having that Public election since 1977 UNP-JRJ politics of so-called democracy !
    UNP-politics of democracy is confined to right to vote only means come to Political-Power.
    After that there is no Political road map for that UNP to conduction Elections of due time.
    Universal Franchised is not that the pillar of Democracy which is preached by leaders of UNP time that DS, Sir John JRJ, R.Premapala or Dasa and Ranil Wicks since 1948?
    By that political performs of UNP has been reveled an indefinitely that postpone of Elections of Local govt. Provincial councils, Parliament and Presenditial by UNP leaders at the time to time.
    The key feature of (UNP TNA JVP) never-ever promised exercise that Right Vote is NOT that guarantee by under that UNP doctorial regime -in power… .2015 January 8th.
    Politically UNP is not for a election.
    Election is an Utopian dream by under the RW of UNP’s governances .
    That has been proven last 40 months of misruling of nation state by RW +CBK of UNP that SLFP grand alliance since 2015 January 8th?
    Even SC judges and foreign Embassies in Colombo are backing for UNP+TNA+JVP NOT to that HELD election on due time. According to them is will of People is Not that ” Democracy” .
    Meanwhile USA, UK, EU nation, Australia, Canada, Japan, Indian and UNO certain organization are an opposed early election in Island to they advocated is not shall reflected Will of majority, by that they call anti -Democracy or Political Coup by originated President of SL.

  • 1
    0

    The Nation needs to thank the Judiciary for stopping a crazy President from taking decisions to satisfy his ego and emotions without respecting the law of the land. Since the SC verdicts, the annoyed President has openly shown his dis-respect to the Judiciary and the CC. He has demonstrated his incapability to abide by the constitution.
    In this context , my view is that the CJ needs to realise the impending damage that this man cause and invoke the provisions of Article 37(2) to remove the President.
    The Public should canvass and mobilise opinion to do so.

  • 0
    0

    I agree with what you want to do, Eardley Abayaratna, but I will not get active about it.
    .
    I won’t get Pro-active unless I feel that my weak efforts are relevant.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.