23 June, 2024


The Constitutional Council – Is It Under Threat?

By Nihal Jayawickrama –

Dr Nihal Jayawickrama

In Parliament, a few weeks ago, the President claimed that the Constitutional Council was an “executive body”. The Leader of the Opposition asserted that it was “part of the legislature”.  Now, the President’s Media Division has issued a statement which appears to be in the nature of a threat to the members of the Constitutional Council. It states:

“The President as the head of the executive is duty bound to make certain appointments to high office, including the Inspector General of Police, according to the procedure stipulated by the Constitution and in line with the President’s constitutional duty to exercise powers pertaining to the Defence of the State. Therefore, the President must perform his Constitutional duties, without any impediment or interference. . . . Any restraint placed on the President in the performance of his Constitutional duty would be in contravention of the Constitution. . . . The President is now seeking to refer the matter to Parliament.”

The claims made by the President and the Leader of the Opposition, and the threat issued by the President’s Media Division, all appear to be unfounded. The Constitutional Council is an independent body, not subject to any influence or control by the executive or legislative branches of government. The powers of the Inspector-General of Police do not “pertain to the defence of the State”.  The IGP is a civilian officer concerned with the maintenance of law and order within the country. Moreover, the President’s Media Division appears to be ignorant of the fact that the Constitution does place “restraints” on the President in the performance of his duties and functions. That, surely, is the purpose of the Constitution.

One such restraint is contained in Article 41C of the Constitution. It states that no person shall be appointed to any of the scheduled offices (which includes the office of the IGP) unless such appointment has been approved by the Council upon a recommendation made to the Council by the President. Even an appointment to act in an office for a period exceeding 14 days, or for successive periods not exceeding 14 days, also requires to be approved by the Council.   Article 41E (4) requires the nine- member Council to endeavour to reach a unanimous decision, failing which a decision to be valid must be supported by not less than five members.

The President’s Media Division would be well advised to familiarize itself with the Constitution of Sri Lanka so as not to regard the requirement imposed on the President to seek the approval of the Constitutional Council when making the specified appointments as an “impediment or interference”. If, as the statement adds, “the President is now seeking to refer the matter to Parliament”, it would be interesting to know whether what is intended is an amendment of the Constitution to remove what it describes as “restraints”.

If the President’s Media Division was indeed familiar with the provisions of the Constitution, it would have advised the President that he ought not to have sought the approval of the Constitutional Council on every occasion on which he wanted to grant an extension of service to the former Inspector-General of Police. The President is not required to seek the approval of the Constitutional Council to grant an extension of service to a serving public officer.  An “extension” is not a new appointment.

The Constitutional Council too appears not to be free of fault. Article 41G (3) requires the Council to make rules relating to the performance and discharge of its duties and functions. Such rules would presumably prescribe the “procedure” to be followed in the transaction of business at meetings of the Council. As far as I am aware, no such Rules have yet been published in the Gazette and placed before Parliament. In the absence of such Rules, how does the Council decide whether a person proposed for appointment is suitable or not for office? Does the Council interview the individual? Does the Council examine his or her previous record of service or employment? I recall an occasion when I met a member of a previous Constitutional Council immediately after it had approved the nomination of a new Judge of the Court of Appeal. That member did not even recall the name of the Judge. He neither knew him, nor had even seen him. He did not know his previous record of service. It was a simple case of “rubber-stamping”. Perhaps that is how the President’s Media Division expects the Constitutional Council to perform its constitutional duty.

It may be recalled that the Constitutional Council was intended to be the principal achievement of the 2015 Bill for the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Its duty was to recommend to the President fit and proper persons for appointment to the independent commissions to be established under the Constitution, and to approve or reject persons recommended by the President for appointment to certain important scheduled state offices. What the Bill promised was a Council consisting of a majority of independent persons of eminence and integrity who were not members of any political party. What came forth, after the amending Bill was mutilated in Parliament, was a Council in which the overwhelming majority were active politicians, and civil society representation was reduced from the proposed six to a mere three.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 7

    It looks like the President or officials attached to President are no clue or knowledge about the Constitution. This is because JRJ said that he had all the powers other than to make man into woman or vise versa.

  • 9

    Ranil has proved over and over again that he is a dictator. In a Democracy, there should be no place for a dictator. Its time the Constitutional Council stands its ground and not to give in to the President’s threat.

    • 5

      The present Speaker has proved beyond any doubt that he has, over the years, acted as a lap dog of the Rajapaksas, and now he is also a lap dog of Ranil. This undesirable act of his has resulted in him getting insulted by the President. President, by his statement that the Constitutional Council is an extension of the Presidency, has clearly shown that this Speaker has become a “cooly” of the President.

      Further, by signing the social media bill, which was supposed to have been confirmed by the Attorney General that it conformed to the clauses amended by the Supreme Court, the Speaker did not call the AG before a Parliamentary Select Committee to investigate how he provided his confirmation again shows this Speaker has to be kicked out of his seat as he is a DISHONEST AND BIAS SPEAKER.

    • 1

      But we had JRJ for a decade.

  • 7

    He is a Komodo Dragon in sheep’s clothing.

    • 0

      The KD is a little too big to disguise as a sheep.

  • 0

    According to the recently legalized “Online Safety Legislation,” isn’t it possible to refer this Presidential Media Division communique for violating the provisions of that Law?

    Doesn’t it communicate “FALSEHOOD” as regards the Constitutional Provisions and the working of the Constitutional Council to impose an “Almighty President” against the mandate given by the people? In addition, this communique undermines the authority of the Judiciary to make it subjugative to Presidential Authority and challenges its supremacy. This communique is also a reimposition of a threat to the Judiciary in the wake of eight (08) petitions that are pending to be taken up for hearing in the coming days in regard to the appointment of an IGP.

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.