22 May, 2019

Blog

Sacking RW, Appointing MR & Dissolution Of Parliament Are Unconstitutional

By Suri Ratnapala

Prof. Suri Ratnapala

This Opinion addresses the following questions presented by Mr Upul Jayasuriya, Attorney-at-law.

1. Is the purported dismissal Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe from the office of Prime Minister by the President constitutionally valid?

2. Is the purported appointment of Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister constitutionally valid?

3. Is the Presidential Proclamation of November 9, 2018 purporting to dissolve the Parliament constitutionally valid?

For the reasons herein stated, the answer to each question is negative.

1. Purported dismissal of the PM and the appointment of another person as PMThe President has no power to dismiss Mr Wickremasinghe as Prime Minister.

The argument that the power to appoint the PM carries an inherent power to remove the PM is incorrect. There is no such power under Westminster convention or the provisions of the Sri Lanka Constitution. This argument is founded on a misapprehension that the PM serves at the pleasure of the President. Even an employer at common law cannot lawfully dismiss an employee except in accordance with the terms of the contract and applicable legislation.

The Prime Minister’s tenure in office is defined by Art 46(2) which provides:

(2) The Prime Minister shall continue to hold office throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers continues to function under the provisions of the Constitution unless he–

(a) resigns his office by a writing under his hand addressed to the President;

or

(b) ceases to be a Member of Parliament.

Mr Wickremesinghe has not resigned his office. He has not ceased to be a Member of Parliament. (As stated in this Opinion, the purported dissolution of Parliament is null and void.) He has not vacated his office by death. The question then is whether the Cabinet of Ministers continues or has ceased to function. This matter is governed by Art 48 (1) and (2) which provides:

48. (1) On the Prime Minister ceasing to hold office by death, resignation or otherwise, except during the period intervening between the dissolution of Parliament and the conclusion of the General Election, the Cabinet of Ministers shall, unless the President has in the exercise of his powers under Article 70, dissolved Parliament, stand dissolved …

(2) If Parliament rejects the Statement of Government Policy or the Appropriation Bill or passes a vote of no-confidence in the Government, the Cabinet of Ministers shall stand dissolved …

Mr Wickremesinghe, to reiterate, has not ceased to hold office as PM by death or resignation or by ceasing to be a Member of Parliament. Therefore, the Cabinet of Ministers will stand dissolved during the life of the Parliament only if Parliament:

(a) rejects the Statement of Government Policy,

(b) rejects the Appropriation Bill, or

(c) passes a vote of no-confidence in the Government.

None of these events has occurred. Since no event that could constitutionally terminate the office of Mr Wickremasinghe has occurred, he remains the Prime Minister and there is no vacancy of the office of Prime Minister.

It should be noted that even if there was a valid dissolution of the current Parliament, Mr Wickremasinghe and the Cabinet would have remained as the Caretaker Government until the General Election by virtue of Art 47(1). Therefore, the President has no constitutional authority to appoint Mr Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister.

2. The Sinhala text of the Constitution leads to the same result

The President has claimed the authority to dismiss Mr Wickremesinghe from the office of PM based on the Sinhala text of Art 48(1) of the Constitution. This claim is unwarranted. The relevant Sinhala words are ‘dhoorayen ivath karanu labeemen ho illaa as veemen ho anyaakaarayakin’. These words in English translation means ‘removal from office, resignation or otherwise’. The words‘removal from office’ refers to the circumstance of being removed from office according to the Constitution. Under the Constitution the power of removing the PM is vested solely in Parliament which could do so only by rejecting the Statement of Government Policy or the Appropriation Bill or by passing a vote of no-confidence in the Government.

Therefore, the claimed power based on the Sinhala text of the Constitution has no merit.

3. The purported dissolution of the current Parliament

The President, by Proclamation of November 9, 2018, has purported to dissolve the current Parliament. On 13 November 2018, the Supreme Court in response to several petitions, made interim orders suspending the effect of the Proclamation until 7 December 2018. The Court is scheduled to hear arguments on December 4, 5 and 6.

The Proclamation has been made in clear and direct violation of Article 70(1) which provides as follows.

(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.

Parliament has not made a request for its dissolution.

The President is the sole authority under the Constitution with power to ‘summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament’. (Art 33(2)) However this power is not absolute but must be exercised according to the Constitution. Therefore, it must be exercised in accordance with Art 70(1) as amended by the

Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Two important presumptions of statutory interpretation are relevant to this question.

First is the presumption that the general provision does not detract from the specific provision. (Generalia specialibus non derogant.) In other words, the general provision is qualified by the special provision on the same subject. The proviso of Art 70(1) qualifies and limits the power granted by Art 33(2) and Art 70.

Second is the presumption that the later enactment prevails over the earlier contrary enactment. (Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant.) Art 70(1) as introduced by the Nineteenth Amendment is the later enactment that was clearly intended and has effect of qualifying and limiting the power of the President to dissolve Parliament.

4. The Attorney-General’s argument has no merit

The Attorney-General is reported to have made the following argument before the Supreme Court at the hearing on 13 November 2018.

‘No provision of the 19th Amendment was called for a referendum and pruning of President’spowers must have been done via referendum. The 19th Amendment did not require a referendum because executive power was intact as it stood before the referendum. Executive powers cannot be eroded. It can be approved by people exercising the franchise.

‘The Article 70(1) cannot be read in isolation when all provisions of the 19th Amendment taken together did not require a referendum because it did not erode the powers of the President’. (The Daily Mirror 2018-11-13)

This argument is without merit.

The Supreme Court considered and delivered its judgment on the Nineteenth Amendment Bill in S.D. Nos. 4-19/2015 heard on 1st 2nd and 6th of April 2015. Since the Bill was described in its Long Title as being for the amendment of provisions of the Constitution, the only question which the Supreme Court could determine was whether the Bill required approval by the People at a Referendum by virtue of the provisions of Article 83. (Art 120 proviso (a)) It determined that the Bill did not require referendum approval.

The petitioners in that proceeding made precisely the same argument that the Attorney-General now makes, namely that the President’s executive power could not be restricted without the approval of the People at a Referendum. The argument was considered and rejected by the Supreme Court. The limitation of the President’s discretion by the establishment of the Constitutional Council was previously considered by the Supreme Court in its Judgement on the Seventeenth Amendment Bill. The Court held that the fetter on the Presidential discretion to make appointments to high offices was consistent with the sovereignty of the people established by Articles 3 and 4.

In the Judgment on the Nineteenth Amendment Their Lordships emphasised the President’s responsibility to Parliament established by Art 42 and concluded:

Because the Constitution must be read as a whole, Article 4(b) must also be read in the light of Article 42. Clearly, the Constitution did not intend the President to function as an unfettered repository of executive power unconstrained by other organs of governance. (emphasis added)

The power to dissolve Parliament derives from the old Royal Prerogative which was restrained in the past only by convention. It is not in the nature of strict executive power. In the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada it is considered part of the reserve power of the monarch. The limitation of the Presidential power to dissolve Parliament and its location in Parliament itself enhances the sovereignty of the People.

5. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above:

(a)  The purported dismissal of Mr Wickremasinghe from the office of Prime Minister is unconstitutional.

(b)  The purported appointment of Mr Rajapaksa as Prime Minister is unconstitutional.

(c)  The purported dissolution of the current Parliament by the Proclamation of 9 November 2018 is unconstitutional.

Suri Ratnapala, Attorney-at-Law – Emeritus Professor of Law The University of Queensland

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 19
    0

    Thank you for this very clear interpretation of the relevant clauses. I hope the Supreme Court will come to the same conclusion on the 7th of December 2018.

    • 10
      0

      Nirmala N – “I hope the Supreme Court will come to the conclusion on the 7th of December 2018.”
      Very unlikely, “Ammata Hooooooooooo, Ammata Hooooooooooo” with two idiots at the helm – Sillysena and Jarapaksha. Coming soon, Murder, Rape, Highway Robbery and the list goes on and on!

  • 16
    0

    HEMANTHI BULATHWATTE gives a reply for this political problem, Please read it all.
    (Hon. Maithreepala Sirisena, Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe and Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa with due respect I , humbly request you three to hand over your resignations and leave politics with respect, integrity. COZ
    1. A leader who cannot control and command 222 men and women on either side, cannot lead and control 20 million people in this country…. not once not twice but many a times you both have proved your incapability. Even a 16-17-year-old child becoming a Head Prefect in a school controls 1000 or more children better than you.
    2. You support drug lords, rapists, thieves, murderers, maniacs, fraudsters, to enter politics and spread crime all over the country under the guise of a politician.
    3. You never stop your allies engaging in crime and offence, corruption, money laundering, unfair and undue enrichment, unwanted and unacceptable behaviour,( allowed even the family).
    4. Never took action legally to bring offenders to justice, you always protected criminals and made general public suffer
    5. You misused power, mandate given by people, to abuse back the same innocent citizens of this poor country
    6. You took decisions only for your advantage but never thought of the country and its people.
    7. You abused power unimaginably and it had drawn back the country into a deep catastrophe, debt crisis and have jeopardize the respect of being the oldest democracy in Asia.
    8. You damaged the religious and ethnic harmony for you to prevail and destroyed the ones multinational national multi religious societies lived in peace coz you never wanted people to live in peace. You spread violence, racism, intolerance, inhumanity, in the society.
    9. You being lawyers never let the Rule of Law stand independently and impartially. Always influenced the justice. Democratic rights of the people were blatantly violated. Fundamental Rights were neglected. Human Rights abused.

  • 19
    0

    Suri Ratnapala is absolutely correct. This was a constitutional coup hatched jointly by Maithiripala and Mahinda to be manipulated as a constitutional crisis. Referendam is for national crisis. Dissolving Parliament by the President is illegal. I think it is vital to raise the President’s veil to find out whether he is driven by evil motive to oust Ranil Wickremasinghe without giving notice and that too on Friday as pre-planned. Ranil was never given time to think about it and wanted to take him by surprise. Maithiripala has spoilt the good governance and had created the unwanted problem.

  • 13
    1

    How could we 22 million Sri Lankans let these three idiots ruin the country . MS, MS and RANIL: each day costs a lot to Sri Lankan economy and to the country. Why this idiot MS does not know that.

  • 13
    0

    Yes Prof, everything he has been doing since October 26th is unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and insane. This pyromaniac is out of control and dragging the country down with him.

  • 4
    13

    Er..I am sorry. Is Prof Suri supposed to be a constitutional expert? I think not. For example he doesn’t seem to know that 70(1) and 33(2)(C) both have the same chronology both come from the 19th. Just go to Sri Lanka Parliament website, download 19th amendment and read the new Article 33 (the 19th amendment article 33 replaced the previous Article 33). Then download the prior version of the constitution, upto and including the 17th amendment. In that read Article 33 prior to amendment by 19th. Compare the two and you will see that it was 19th Amendment which inserted 33(2)(C), a presidential power to summon prorogue and dissolve unfettered by any proviso assigned to prez in addition to the power in 70(1) which is a fettered power. Before trying to interpret a country’s constitution please do some background reading. Otherwise all foreign uni personnel might end up with egg on face.

    • 1
      0

      Thank you Critical Take, I worry why people cannot do this simple act of reading the ’78 vs the 19th, the other interesting thing is why the 33 (2) C was added. Any thoughts?

      • 1
        0

        wannihami, plenty of thoughts. See below for my reply to Chandra. It is so Le carre as you say. I don’t think anyone was supposed to know about 33(2)(C). I think it was to satisfy SC and prevent a referendum being prescribed to pass 70(1). Only, after the SC hurdle had been passed everyone was supposed to just fixate on 70(1) and relegate 33(2)(c) to ‘TEN UNEXPLAINABLE THINGS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION’. Not only le carre but Davinci code too I think. Wonder which of the Prez advisers cracked the Darvinci code? Have you found anything in the 2015 April Hansard? If so share.

      • 0
        0

        Wannihami;
        More importantly, can the MPs on both sides READ and UNDERSTAND these Articles?

    • 1
      0

      Dear Critical Take
      Kindly spare a minute for me.
      As I see it (being uneducated in law) out of this 70 and 33 one article specifies how the PM ceases to be WITHOUT the intervention of the President (death, voluntary resignation or 2/3 majority) and the other specifies how how it happens WITH the intervention of the President (. He simply is empowered to do it) So there is no contradiction or ambiguity. Am I right thinking this way?

      Soma

      • 0
        0

        No Soma. 33(2)(c) and 70(1) talk about Presidential power to summon, prorogue and dissolve parliament. You are talking about Art.46(2), which indeed “specifies” how the PM ceases to hold office- (voluntary resignation as you say, ceasing to be a member of parliament, [death is not specified as a means of ceasing to hold office] and if the cabinet ceases to be as a result of the Parliamentary action). Other articles 47(2) and 48(1) merely mention removal of the Prime minister without mentioning any removing agent. Jayampathy is on record(and Suri and other lackeys are merely copying him) that this removal mentioned in 48(1) means removal through cabinet ceasing to be. They apparently do not realise that if this interpretation is accepted, relevant bit of 48(1) would read like nonsense;- “Except during an interim period(between dissolution and elections), when PM stops holding office by removal through dissolution of cabinet, the cabinet stands dissolved.” Heh, heh the excuses men come up with when they have goofed. Also if ‘removal from office’ is interpreted as ‘removal through cabinet dissolution as a result of parliamentary action’ in 48(1), how does Jayampathy hope to apply that interpretation to Article 47(2), which also talks about PM ceasing to hold office as a result of removal when the Parliament is no more. How can this removal happen then? Does he seriously hope people to believe that his interpretation of ‘removal from office’ – ‘through cabinet cessation via parliamentary action’ will only fit Art 48(1) and not to 47(2). Is it customary or sane for constitutions to have two interpretations for the same phrase occurring in adjacent articles? May be constitutions in Alice’s Wonderland behave this way.

  • 5
    0

    People wanted a change of government and choose a President from the opposite group, after he took
    a solemn vow the president unknowingly appointed the opposite to be prime minister against on his own now his linking the votes authenticity will be electronically, The best secrets are the most twisted .

  • 11
    0

    Thank you for the opinion you have provided. It was concise and easier to read and comprehend and is a worthy read for anyone concerned with the current constitutional issues in Srilanka.

  • 1
    3

    Can we verify from the Commonwealth Parliament

  • 7
    0

    I am no lawyer but it always seemed to me, based on reading the relevant sections of the constitution and considering their underlying intent, that the President has not acted in accordance with the constitution in respect of all three matters. I am sure most people would also see it that way, and it is good to see someone so learned in the law confirming this for us. The reasons given to justify the President’s actions are specious and unconvincing and the legal basis cited is not on clear, unambiguous provisions of the Constitution but on authority read as implied and/or inferred from others. The purpose of the law is surely to provide for good order, not to enable resourceful lawyers to exploit loopholes and loose ends which the draftsman had inadvertently left behind, to thwart the purpose which the law was meant to serve. BTW, I see that the writer is an Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Queensland. Somehow, I don’t think ‘our own’ celebrated Professor of Law, the redoubtable GLP, will quite see it the same way.

  • 5
    9

    Ha1 Ha!! Ha!!!
    =
    Good Professor Suri, Your opinion seem to be notoriously partisan.
    =
    Could you also enlighten us in relation to question 1.” Is the purported dismissal Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe from the office of Prime Minister by the President constitutionally valid?”
    Two adjunct questions Jayasuriya has forgotten in his upset state of mind:
    =
    a) why did the UNP, Ranil W and his advisors not put the same question to the Supreme Court?
    =
    b) Would you have advised them to go the Supreme Court (because your opinion at the end of the day isn’t worth a fat lawyer’s fart.).

    • 4
      0

      Bingo! Professor Cooray! Now you sir have earned your professorship!!
      Why didn’t Ranil W go to the SC, because they knew the answer.

  • 5
    2

    Good argument. Now there is enough ground for impeachment. This man cannot be trusted and kept in this office anymore.

  • 2
    6

    “1. Is the purported dismissal Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe from the office of Prime Minister by the President constitutionally valid?”
    If dismissal of Ranil is unconstitutional, he should have gone to SC which has the final say on this matter, without squatting in TT and shouting that he is the PM. May be he had some doubts about the outcome if he went to SC.
    —————–
    Anyway, Ranil should be ashamed of his decision to hang on at TT after he was removed by the President. Like the ‘Gentleman’ PM Mr. D.B.Wijetunga he should have vacated TT and fight his case. May be his White Buddies advised him not to leave TT!!

    • 0
      0

      “Like the ‘Gentleman’ PM Mr. D.B.Wijetunga he should have vacated TT and fight his case.”
      It is Mr.D.M.Jayaratne not Mr. D.B.Wijetunga. Sorry for the mistake.

  • 3
    3

    In a maze of interpretations and explanations in a series of articles and comments, Prof. Ratnapala’s elucidation has come as a crystal clear exposition. My memory immediately recalled the very clear interpretation of Dr. IDS Weerawardena in 1960, to the issue whether Srimavo could be PM while not being a member of the House of Representatives, ie an MP. He explained that the legislature comprised the Queen, the H of R and the Senate. Obviously, she was not and could not be Queen. So if she becomes an MP or a Senator, she can be PM, if she is elected to either chamber within the stipulated time as prescribed in the Constitution. She became PM and Ceylon did not fly off the planet.

    Now Prof. Ratnapala has cut the Gordian Knot of the simplest issue made hazy and complicated by such a lot of punditry.

  • 4
    1

    “For the reasons stated above:
    (a) The purported dismissal of Mr Wickremasinghe from the office of Prime Minister is unconstitutional.
    (b) The purported appointment of Mr Rajapaksa as Prime Minister is unconstitutional.
    (c) The purported dissolution of the current Parliament by the Proclamation of 9 November 2018 is unconstitutional.”
    ————————
    There is nothing new in this article. To my knowledge, no one has taken the issue of dismissal of Ranil and appointment of Mahinda to SC to get their verdict. Even though you say it is unconstitutional, it has no bearing at all. Only the verdict of SC matters.
    All the petitions filed at SC are related to dissolution of Parliament. On 7th December if the SC say that it is not unconstitutional what are you going to do? Give up your Emeritus Professorship?

    • 0
      0

      Eagle Eye, Exactly, and wouldn’t you wonder why Ranil did not petition the SC when he was fired. Perhaps he was afraid of the answer.

  • 2
    0

    Yes @ CriticalTake, that is correct. That was widely discussed here. Art 33 (2)(c) was brought in by the 19th Amendment and was redundant. Rajan Philips and Kishali Pinto Jayawardene have both flagged this in their columns in the Sunday Island and the Sunday Times.

    There is no possibility of saying that the later (70 (1)) repealed the earlier (33 (2)(c).
    Rotten drafting, putting the country in a mess.

    Did’nt Prof Suri advise the Ranil Gvt on how to draft Constitutions in 2015? Was this not seen at that time? Stupid. These people destroyed a super duper chance to do away once and for all with the Medamulana thug. Our loss.

    • 1
      0

      Chandra, would you think someone partial to MR sneaked that 33 (2)C in when others were snoozing in their seats, why not check the Hansard or 2015 April, it reads like a Le Carre, no not really, but worth a read.

      • 0
        0

        @Wannihami, Good idea! Must read.

        Le Carre? These idiots? Not really !

    • 1
      0

      Now people are saying that it’s not rotten drafting at all. That 33(2)(C) was put there in the Chapter VII of Constitution titled ‘The Executive The President Of The Republic’ for a purpose- i.e. as a trojan horse. See, to the people and everyone else practically, it would be broadcast that the 19th really curtailed the presidential power to dissolve at his discretion. The unnoticed 33(2)(C) would lurk there surreptitiously for the sole purpose of satisfying SC that a referendum won’t be needed for 70(1), because 33(2)(c) is there. But to the public and to everyone except the inner inner circle it would be broadcast at full blast ‘See we have cut President’s power. See our 70(1)! Wonderful na?’. Only 70(1) would be highlighted like mad hoping no one outside the inner circle would even notice 33(2)(C) or if they noticed everyone would think “oh it has come from the JR constitution, it’s not important” This deception worked for the most part. Not only PRof. Suri but even The Sunday Times editor for example does not know that 33(2)(C) came from the 19A. See editorial on 11 November 2018. JAyampathy should be given a prize for Constitutional hoodwinking. Same for 33A. Tried to make out it was a new provision by him when it was the same old Article 42. I in fact think Kishali Pinto Jayawardene was one of the few yahapalana supporters to see through Jayampathy’s airs and graces to his mediocrity. But even she fell for Jayampathy’s “General Powers” lark- trying to wriggle out of 33(2)(c) saying 33(2) is a general powers list. It’s not. By retaining JR’s introduction in 33(2) describing it as a list of powers Prez has in addition to powers and functions assigned to him by constitution and other laws, Jayampathy made sure 33(2)(C) was in addition to 70(1).

      • 0
        0

        To a laymen’s mind, it seems that giving Jayampathy and that lot such cleverness in ‘sneaking’ in Art 33 (2)(c) in the belief that the Court would be happy with that and not question is too much credit, I think!

        The UNPs legal frontmen have messed up big time, so why not this as well?

        I asked a niece who is a law student and she said that the Supreme Court did not even touch on 33(2)(c) and 70 (1) in their decision on 19A. It did not feature at all. There were many lawyers appearing for and against. If this was deliberately put in, would this not have been brought out by someone? And if it was to satisfy the Court, would the judges themselves not have commented on that??

        Confusing for us. But I am still more inclined to think that this was stupidity. Everything else is also like that!

        Hope the Court clears this stinking mess up.

  • 4
    6

    Suri Ratnapala,

    Do not jump the gun. Please wait until 07th Dec 2018 for the decision by the Supreme court of Sri Lanka.

    We are very confident that President of Sri Lanka can sack the Prime Minister and he can also Dissolve Parliament and he can go for a Referendum if the Supreme Court overturned his decisions because peoples mandate is supreme and above all.

  • 2
    0

    Suri Ratnapala looks at the sacking RW, appointing MR as PM & dissolution of Parliament and concludes these ‘unconstitutional’. The MS & MR actions following the above three are getting ominous – well past ‘crisis’ stage.

    We must not allow the ‘happenings’ reaching unsolvable domain.

  • 2
    1

    I urge my fellow hitchhikers on this cyber wasteland to listen to the Ada Derana 360 from November 19th, I am very sorry but it is in Sinhala, I will translate the most important points in a future posting.

  • 0
    0

    Haa Haa Haa, bloody humbug. You know bloody well , every step was taken according to the constitution. Your interpretation of the law shows that you are a poor looser. For you, country comes second and your political warped theories and the buddies come first. I may not agree with everything MR did prior to 2015 but at least he is a patriot and done tremendous positive things to safeguard the sovereignty and unitary status of our beloved country. Have you heard ” When the going gets tough, the tough get going” . MR is street-smart politician and does the right thing at right time according to the pulse of nation. So don’t be a party pooper just enjoy man.

  • 1
    0

    if according to what leading lawyers say that the actions taken my president Maithripala Sirisena since Oct 26th 2018 is unconstitutional . why do we have to wait till December to clear the present chaotic situation
    the country is facing

  • 1
    0

    Why UNP,TNA or JVP ( Red Elephant) did not go to supreme court for sacking of Ranil W.I like answer for that.

  • 5
    1

    Prof. Suri Ratnapala,

    It is nothing to do with Constituionality or Civilty. Sacking of RW was to do with firing a Salvo at India and saving the Criminal MR. MS & MR were bed fellows as they were part of the AXIS of EVIL. What ever they do they will face Justice They can run but they cant hide. The biggest looser is Lanka and Lankans ( minus Tamils).

  • 1
    0

    Indeed as some enlightened persons have said, why didn’t RW go to the Supreme Court if he thought he had been wronged? That would have prevented the endless speculations about who was right and who was wrong and all the despicable happenings in the Parliament. While previous no confidence motions have involved the submission to the speaker, an all party discussion when it could be taken up, time given for a debate,, and then a vote taken, this NCM was rushed through in a matter of minutes! Come on Mr Speaker, you allowed yourself to be bullied by your party men and women, and you showed your true Green colour, in more ways than one

  • 0
    0

    Whatever said and done by every body so far, it is very clear that everything was done without respecting the mandate given to them. If you do something according to conscience that always be the law ultimately,
    except where law makers have deliberately created loopholes for the benefit of their allies. Our costiunion appears to be drafted with that intention I can believe considering the people involved.

    Law alone cannot establish the the democracy. The rulers should have the will, genuine will to do it without searching for isolated words not to do it. This is what has happened and country has suffered unprecedentedly.

  • 0
    1

    hi
    As a normal public we do not read these constitution we always vote by what is mentioned in party rallies prior to the elections therefore, the mandate what was published before the president election in 2015 is that the executive power of the president will be reduce and the power will be the parliament. we do believe that the 19th amendment was created and passed in the parliament with this intention. including the presidential candidate MS vowed that he will do so we voted for him to implement the same, now these lawyers are fighting with a word translation between Sinhala and English in the 19th Amendment which I feel its totally against are voting rights. The decision made by MS the president on 26th Oct onward is unconstitutional.

  • 2
    1

    Prof; Suri Ratnapalas interpretation is clear and precise. But notwithstanding the correct position Sarath. Nanda.Silva the notorious Ex: CJ: NOW REFERRED TO AS THE RASPUTIN OF SRILANKA is now in the process of advising the Judges,before the hearing in Dec:6th,7th,and 8th that his interpretation should be upheld.A FORM OF TWISTING THE ARMS OF THE JUDGES. A fuller bench as requested by MS-MaRa would include those appointed by MaRa previously. This is the reason for the disruption of Parliament etc so as to buy time, until the hearing of the case..
    Hope the Judges would not be swayed, but uphold the Law.

    • 0
      0

      @Plato, I beg of you…please do not insult Rasputin by saying that our Gedera Yana Gaman common bus conductor type Sarath Silva is like him!

    • 0
      0

      Plato

      So you disagree with Dr. Laksiri Fernando.
      How could you?

  • 0
    0

    Native.
    Dr. Laksiri Fernando showed his true colours only recently on the interpretation of the 19th .Most of us thought he was a Liberal academic. Dayan J. and Laksiri have agendas up their sleeves!

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.