Invitaion for Follow up Zoom Discussion

Dear All, Thank you very much for the participants of the Zoom discussion on Constitutional Reform which was held on the 4th December 2020. Please find the Audio and Video files and the Facebook link of the discussion. The follow up discussion will be held on the 18th December from 9.30 am to 12.30 pm. Please keep the date and time free and send us your questions on or before 16th of December. We will discuss them during the meeting. We kindly request that you confirm your participation at your earliest convenience. Thank you. With best regards, Kingsley Karunaratne, Rule of Law Forum 0716884512

Zoom discussion on Constitutional Reform which was held on the 4th December 2020

https://www.facebook.com/100009770886859/videos/1321405704861780/

A government Defence of the judiciary that does more damage than good

A government Defence of the judiciary that does more damage than good Columns By Kishali Pinto Jayawardena. A government Defence of the judiciary that does more damage than good President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his Minister of Justice who went charging into Parliament this week to pontificate or plead for judges to be protected ‘from criticism’ may well be advised to reflect on some salutary truths. Truly remarkable Ministerial idiocy In South Asia’s less than salubrious context of the separation of powers being limited to constitutional theory rather than evidenced in practice, ruling party politicians defending the independence of the judiciary is the surest sign that the judicial institution is not in a happy state. The Minister justified the wheels of justice turning in fortuitous ways towards Government politicians in recent weeks by arguing that these were all cases filed to extract political vengeance by the previous administration. His most peculiar logic, (or rather, the absence thereof), was that, as a lawyer appearing in many of these cases, he knew that they were trumped up accusations. Far be it from me to waste valuable column inches on asinine politicians but this truly remarkable idiocy belongs in a class of its own. As the President’s personal lawyer once upon a doubtlessly beneficial time not so long ago, the Minister may well believe in his brief that his client, other members of the Rajapaksa family and their sundry supporters including public servants, indicted variously on serious charges ranging from misappropriation to abuse of public property, were innocent. Even so, that is a subjective belief, not to be pressed upon the public as an absurd justification for the propriety of court verdicts which (apparently) the Minister was trying to uphold. Surely those decisions, of the trial court or the appeal court as the case may be, should be defended or critiqued for that matter on an objective assessment of their merits or demerits? Indeed, this Ministerial tilting at the windmills of Opposition parliamentarians who pounced on recent acquittals of the Government’s men to question the legitimacy of the rulings, does far more damage than good to their own cause. “I know the law’ and the lack of commonsense It reminds me of that ‘yahapalanaya’ (good governance) Minister of Law and Order who, when the Avant Garde floating armoury scandal broke in the country, defended his former client, the Avant Garde security firm accused of siphoning massive sums of public money to provide private security services. That Ministerial defence on the floor of the House, was on the basis that ‘he knew’ that nothing untoward had happened. He resigned following the uproar over that statement but after a discreet interval, was brought back into the Cabinet by his Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. Yahapalanaya’ (then) or ‘Saubhagya dakma’ (now), lawyer-Ministers shine brighter in the clowns gallery of Parliament than any of their colleagues, it seems. This harsh admonition applies without distinction to those who see no conflict of interest in defending their onetime clients in Parliament while holding Cabinet portfolios on behalf of the Sri Lankan State as well as those who absurdly argue that the President should be given absolute immunity from suit as otherwise, ‘he will waste his time in court.’ That particular canard was rejected outright by the Supreme Court in retaining the right of a citizen to challenge Presidential acts in fundamental rights actions. That at least was preserved in the 20th Amendment to the Constitution whatever else the Court thought fit to throw out, much like one would say, ‘the proverbial baby with the bathwater.’ But, the consequential hard truth is that, very much like that bawdy Sinhalese comedy where a roisterous drunkard goes about in the village insisting that, ‘he knows the law,’ our Ministers who purport to ‘know the law’ and pompously hold forth to the common herd, appear to know very little thereof, neither the law or sheer commonsense, one might add. Several discordant notes in Presidential address But to return to this column’s focus of ill advised Government blathering on the independence of the judiciary, this includes President Rajapaksa’s injunction that the judiciary must rise and ‘use its powers to fight,’ (as per press releases carried by the state media), what he has termed as the ‘menace’ of an ‘onslaught on the dignity and independence of legal systems.’ This was said during the swearing in of twenty one new judges to Sri Lanka’s superior courts, courtsey of an expansion of judges being smuggled into the 20th Amendment to the Constitution at the eleventh hour in Parliament. There are several discordant notes in this address that must be pointed to. First, it is incumbent on the judicial institution to maintain its own dignity through the decorum of its members who must not carry the public stigma of behaviour that disgraces high judicial office. It is thus that the judiciary secures the ‘independent’ badge of pride that is essential for its rulings to have weight in society. It does so by the impartial discharging of its constitutional powers, not by ‘fighting’ anyone, by having Ministers plead on their behalf or by evident overreach in the exercise of powers of contempt against critics. The ugly imbroglio that the Indian Supreme Court has now got itself into by hauling up lawyers who criticise ‘political’ judges must serve as a warning for us as well. Secondly, the President’s remark that freedom of speech is not a ‘licence to defame and malign anyone, least of all judges,’ is self-evident. But that is also a two way street, it must be said. Judges have the heavy onus of upholding the integrity of the institution in which they serve, which is a collective duty to the public and trumps the personal interests of individuals as it may be. Failings thereto have greater consequences than in other circumstances as the collapse of public confidence in the judiciary leads to rejection of the very basis on which a society governed by law, functions. That ‘onslaught’ that must be resisted therefore, is of racism, militarism, and political opportunism of politicians who subvert the Constitution, not the ‘onslaught of criticism’ that the President refers to. Beware the resistance that will come In fact, unjust and unfair criticism of the judiciary by the political opposition or their supporters that the President and his Minister is worried about, have no lasting currency in public debate. Hence, one does not have to call upon anyone, least of all judges to ‘fight’ such opinions. Indeed, it is the judicial Centre that must hold when everything else falls at the ‘political onslaught’ of ambitious men. We see this elsewhere in the world when, despite being harangued, vilified and persecuted by the mercifully outgoing President of ‘these Divided States’, judges stood firm in their affirmations of a free and fair election. To have done otherwise would have brought chaos to the streets. Even as the President’s lawyers sought to shout their way in court alleging electoral fraud without any evidence, they were dealt with firmly, fairly and resolutely. This is what distinguishes failed or failing States from democratic (albeit deeply divided) societies in the global North as well as the South. Sri Lanka must make up its mind as to what category it wishes to belong to, judges, citizens alike. In that regard, irrelevant nonsense of Ministers (of Justice or otherwise) in scoring own goals by trying to ‘protect’ the judiciary may be treated with the rich contempt that it deserves. Shared from Sunday Times on 6/12/2020

Sovereignty of the people: Is the Govt. acting lawfully?

Sovereignty of the people: Is the Govt. acting lawfully? Sovereignty of the people: Is the Govt. acting lawfully? By: Tassie Senewiratne, Former S.S.P. The Constitution is the supreme law of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Sovereignty of the People is guaranteed by the Constitution. If Sovereignty of the People is denied, then governance becomes unlawful. The Constitution also lays down separation of powers in the organs of the Government to wit: The Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The Legislature makes laws, the Executive enforces them and the Judiciary applies them to relevant cases arising out of the breach of law. That is generally the mode of governance as in other democracies. As regards Sovereignty of the People, the Constitution is good only if it is worked to be good. But when the actual working of the Government is irrespective of the Constitution, then Sovereignty of the People is subverted. This regrettably appears to be the deplorable state of affairs in this country. Working of the Government organs then is desultory of Law and Order. While the concern here is whether the Government is acting lawfully, the further concern is whether the Government and its organs are acting in violation of the Constitutional provision on Sovereignty of the People. This is a vital consideration in the context of Law and Order for the people. There is a serious breakdown in this respect at the hands of the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. These three government organs are in grave breach of this Constitutional requirement for Sovereignty of the People. Only a few examples will be given in illustration due to space considerations. The Law for Conciliation Boards which is manifestly for Sovereignty of the People and was working smoothly, was opposed by the Judiciary and the legal fraternity, and later rescinded by the Legislature in blatant violation of Sovereignty of the People. The Administration of Justice Law (AJL) of 1973 which was to serve the Sovereignty of the People was, likewise, opposed by the courts and the legal fraternity and later revoked by the Legislature in 1978, with change of government. There are many other examples in which the changes serve lesser sovereignties than Constitutional Sovereignty. Now, blatantly violating democratic principles, the 20th Amendment has been foisted on the people. The Judiciary and the Auditor General have been made subservient to the Executive President. Sovereignty of the People has, thereby, been reduced to only a lip service. The Constitution being the supreme law of the country, its transgression is a serious offence against the State. Law and order are now at crossroads at this point of time. Law is turning left. Order is turning right. At the junction point are the Police representing the Sovereignty of the People. The Police are much confused as to how they should move them all forward. There is a mix here, a mix of the Sovereignty of the People reposed with the Police, mixed by the organs of government. The mix is made through all four roads leading to this point. The Police are embarrassed at the junction crossing. Fortunately, however, the embarrassment to the Police does not show because they are wearing face masks. These face masks serve the Police a symbolic purpose, unintended though, to cover their discomfiture. Although the Constitution lays down that the Supreme Court shall be the highest and final Superior Court, being subservient to the Executive President, its powers are pruned, and in reality, the President has acquired for himself unfettered monarchical powers. All these bear heavily on the Police tasked with law and order to serve Sovereignty of the People. The only hope is then that future Constitutions will consider these contradictions. Little wonder, that when I asked a constitutional lawyer about challenging the usurpation of the People’s Sovereignty in courts, the reply was, “Courts, Tassie are you dreaming?” A derisive comment doing the rounds these days in social media is ‘Keekaru adhikaranaya’ (Obedient Judiciary). It is thus a vicious circle, with no remedy within sight. All that the people can do is to exclaim with a groan, “Bloody Hell!” or rise up in unison and fight for rights. (The writer is a Retired Senior Superintendent of Police. He can be contacted at seneviratnetz@gmail.com; phone 077 44 751 44) Shared This Post from Sunday Times.

Change established procedure to treat sovereign voters as ‘Principals’ in Constitution-making

Change established procedure to treat sovereign voters as ‘Principals’ in Constitution-making Former Secretary General of Parliament Nihal Seneviratne has outlined the procedure for the passage of the proposed New Constitution as follows: “These eminent lawyers would sift through the representations and memorandums received and prepare a draft report which is expected to be submitted to the President. The President is expected to submit the report and draft to the Speaker and the Speaker would submit this report and thereafter appoint a Select Committee comprising members from both the Government and the Opposition. “The Select Committee following the usual established procedure would invite representations from the public and would study all these memorandums and submit the report back to Parliament with their recommendation. It would deliberate at length, studying all the representation made and submit its final report to Parliament.” The preparation of a Draft report by an ‘Experts Committee’ consisting of eminent lawyers is acceptable as the Ministry of Justice has called for proposals from the public for their consideration. Barring that aspect, the procedure clearly shows that the politicians acting in collusion as ‘Agents/Representatives’ of the people have got a ‘blank cheque’ to usurp the powers of their ‘Principals’ – the sovereign voters, and have their own way through a ‘Parliamentary Select Committee’ under the pretext of following the ‘usual established procedure’of inviting representations from the public which is a mere eyewash. As we know, such a Select Committee of Parliamentarians will even collude to overturn the very objective of the ‘Draft Report’ in order to protect their privileges and narrow vested interests. The process continues with 2/3rd Parliamentary majority culminating with the final eyewash of a ‘Referendum’ where the people are asked to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to a document framed according to the whims and fancies of politicians under a procedure marred with ‘conflict of interest’. Against this backdrop and in keeping with natural justice and the prevailing ‘Law of Agency’, I as a concerned citizen, would strongly suggest that our ‘sovereign voter dedicated’ organisations like ‘Paffrel’, Caffe, CMEV and other civil rights organisations and the academia, prevail upon the National Elections Commission(NEC) to appoint a ‘Civilian Task Force for Constitutional Reforms’ comprising eminent retired ju dges and representatives of these civil society organisations to study and make their own recommendations to the ‘Draft Report’, sans politicians. The final document by the ‘Civilian Task Force’ after being whetted by the NEC and the Supreme Court respectively, should go before the Parliament only for formal approval. The time is ripe for us to press for a change from the present irregular system of governance dominated by unprincipled and dishonest politicians to a system of ‘People-based Governance’ through a robust Constitution. Bernard Fernando Moratuwa

Relapse in to Executive Presidency: How has it come to this?

Relapse in to Executive Presidency: How has it come to this?: When J.R.Jayewardene, after the landslide victory his party the UNP obtained in the 1977 elections, wanted to introduce the 1978 Constitution.... ..

UN chief raises concerns on SL Report to UNHRC

UN chief raises concerns on SL Report to UNHRC: UN Secretary General António Guterres has raised concerns on Sri Lanka, in a report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva. ..

Retired Judges perturbed over proposed 20A.

https://pressreader.com/article/281505048646919

FEATURESThe 20th Amendment:Published 2 days ago on September 21, 2020

FEATURESThe 20th Amendment:Published 2 days ago on September 21, 2020 Building a future and forgetting the past Continued from Sunday Island (20) by Professor Savitri Goonesekere The Judiciary The judiciary is an important organ of government in a system of Parliamentary democracy, often expressed in the concept that institutions engaged in the administration of justice must be “independent” or free of political interference. Certain measures are incorporated in Constitutions, in a Parliamentary democracy, to ensure that there is no political interference in the matter of appointment and dismissals of judges. The long history of political interference and the experience with the impeachment of Chief Justices after 1978 led to pressures for a system of appointment that would prevent such interference. The 19th Amendment failed to incorporate changes in regard to dismissal of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. However it went back to the norms of the 17th Amendment and created a Constitutional Council that was responsible for oversight on appointments to the Appeal Courts, and also in regard to the two judges (apart from the ex officio Chairman, the Chief Justice), who serve on the Judicial Services Commission. This is the body entrusted with the appointment dismissal and disciplinary control of other judicial officers. The 20th Amendment has repealed the provisions on the Constitutional Council. The President is required to obtain the “observations” of the Parliamentary Council that has replaced the Constitutional Council, but he is not required to consider their views in making appointments to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. Appointments are at his complete discretion. He can also (as in the 1978 Constitution) dismiss the two judges who serve on the Judicial Services Commission at his discretion. Both the 19th and 20th Amendment have retained the procedures of impeachment in the 1978 Constitution for dismissals of judges of the highest Appeal Courts. The Attorney General is the chief prosecutor and plays an important role in the administration of justice. The 20th Amendment provides for this appointment to be made at the complete discretion of the President. The oversight of the Constitutional Council that functioned under the 19th Amendment has been removed. The views obtained by the Parliamentary Council that replaced this body are only “observations” and can be ignored by the President. This Council has no oversight responsibility . However the Attorney General’s removal from office will be, as under the 1978 Constitution and the 19th Amendment, according to a specific law that covers this matter- the Removal of Officers Act 2002. This Act provides for a Parliamentary system of investigation and decision making for removal of the Attorney General. High Posts and Public Office The 20th Amendment has repealed the provisions on appointments to designated high posts with the oversight of the Constitutional Council. Appointments to the posts of Commanders of the Armed Forces have been a Presidential prerogative under the 1978 Constitution and the 19th Amendment, and this position has been retained in the 20th Amendment. However the post of Inspector General of Police has been omitted from the high posts coming within the purview of the new Parliamentary Council that has replaced the Constitutional Council. It is not clear how the Inspector General of Police will be appointed, though the Removal of Office Act 2002 determines the procedure for removal and, as in the case of the Attorney General, involves a Parliamentary procedure. The Auditor General’s post is retained as a high post in the Constitution by the 20th Amendment. But he is appointed by the President, and can be removed by him at his discretion, holding office during “good behaviour.” The oversight of the Constitutional Council on his appointment and removal, mandated by the 19th Amendment, has now been removed. This in a context where both the Audit Services Commission and the Procurements Commission established by the 19th Amendment have been abolished by the 20th Amendment. The serious negative implications of these changes for auditing key public institutions have been placed in the public domain by professional associations of auditors. “Independent ” Public Commissions and the 20th Amendment When the 19th Amendment was passed by consensus, it was agreed within and outside Parliament that important public Commissions recognised in the Constitution should be independent of Presidential control. This principle, clearly recognised in the 17th Amendment had been repealed by the 18th Amendment, but was incorporated once again in the 19th Amendment. Consequently the system of appointment and removal was by the President, but subject to the oversight of the Constitutional Council. The 19th Amendment also had detailed provisions aimed at strengthening the work of the Commissions. It established an Auditing Services and Procurement Commission to facilitate oversight, in use of public funds, and financial and management accountability, of important public institutions and offices. It is now stated by those who demonise the 19th Amendment that the Commissions were packed with “NGO Karayas”, because the Constitutional Council was dominated by the same people. This point of view has also been expressed by Prof GL Pieris in public fora and the media (see The Island 13. 9. 2020), and by the Minister of Justice. They should know that this assessment is based on fiction rather than facts. The Constitutional Council had a very strong majority of Parliamentarians, and was chaired by the Speaker. There were only three persons representing “civil society.” At no time were all of them from NGOs. Several had an established national and international reputation, as required by the 19th Amendment, and none of these appointments were objected to in Parliament. The previous Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka was delisted from regional and international bodies of National Human Rights Commissions, for non-conformity with the Paris Principles that set standards on the method of appointment. Professor GL Pieris and the Minister of Justice must be aware that the Human Rights Commission appointed under the 19th Amendment has received national, regional and international recognition for its work. The 20th Amendment has abolished the Auditing Services Commission and the Procurement Commission. It has also repealed the detailed provisions in the 19th Amendment relating to other Commissions. There are new provisions relating to the Public Service Commission and the National Police Commission. The provisions on the Elections Commission limit their powers to monitor and set guidelines for the conduct of elections. A new provision provides for public complaints against the Police and for redress “according to law”. It is not clear how this procedure will be implemented. The 19th Amendment provided for Presidential appointments and removal of members of the Commissions, but subject to oversight by the Constitutional Council. This procedure has been abolished. The President has full powers in regard to appointments and removal of members of the Commissions referred to in the 20th Amendment. The transitional provisions on the continuity of Commissions and High Post appointments under the 19th Amendment, give the power of removal to the President. This would include removal of members of the current Human Rights Commission referred to above, at the discretion of the President. The drafters of the 20th Amendment have disregarded the standards set by the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Commissions, once again. A Post 20th Amendment Future on Governance The 19th Amendment was to be a temporary initiative for reducing the powers of the Executive Presidency and re-establishing governance with an elected Prime Minister, Cabinet and Parliament, pending the adoption of a new Constitution. The 19th Amendment therefore changed what can be described as “the grund norm” or the foundational principles of the 1978 Constitution. This significant modification to the system of governance was not challenged from within or outside Parliament, or by litigation in the Supreme Court, because there was consensus that the change was good for the governance of the country. The 20th Amendment is a dramatic turn around and has changed the “grund norm” again. The 20th Amendment that was in the public domain in 2019 as a strategy to eliminate the Presidential system of governance, has now emerged as a Constitutional change that will create an even stronger executive Presidency. This time there is no consensus within or outside Parliament. We do not know whether in this context, a 2/3 majority in Parliament and a referendum will be required for the 20th Amendment to become the Constitutional bench mark for the governance of the country in the years to come. We speak of the possibility of drafting a new Constitution to replace the 1978 Constitution, and it is said that the 20th Amendment is an interim measure. But what has been our experience on Constitution making? When the Constitution of South Africa was adopted after a fully participatory drafting process, Nelson Mandela said that “a Constitution is a law that embodies a nation’s aspirations.” Our nation’s aspirations for a new Constitution have never been realised because of adversarial politics, and a failure by politicians to recognise that a Constitution is for the People and not for them. The 19th Amendment could have contributed to good and accountable governance, pending a new Constitution to achieve the agreed objective of dismantling the Presidential system of governance. The two centres “of power” in the executive, created as an interim measure, could have functioned effectively in the nation’s interest, if the President and the Prime Minister had not torn each other apart by their narrow and partisan political agenda. Excellent position papers on key areas of governance were prepared in 2015- 2017, in a consultative manner, and another report was prepared on the basis of public consultations. The Parliamentary drafting process collapsed because our political leadership became enmeshed in adversarial politics. Political interests have once again dominated the drafting of the 20th Amendment. The lack of consensus even within the government is manifested in the fact that no one is taking ownership for drafting the document. The drafting of the 20th Amendment reminds us of the words of a great justice who suggested that it is in the public interest that “laws are not conceived in secrecy and brought forth in obscurity”. Why is there such lack of transparency in regard to the drafting of the 20th Amendment? The public was informed that a Cabinet Sub Committee chaired by Prof GL Pieris, and consisting of the Minister of Justice and others were authorised by the President to draft the 20th Amendment. We are now informed through media that the Justice Minister does not know who prepared the 20 Amendment Bill that has been gazetted to go before Parliament. Another Committee appointed by the Prime Minister also chaired by Professor GL Pieris with the participation of the Minister of Justice and others, will now “report ” on the 20 A. This hardly inspires public confidence in Professor Pieris public statement that Constitutions are not authored by any one, but represents the thinking of the whole government.

The adversarial approach by politicians to Constitution drafting is because of the failure to appreciate that democratic governance which is accountable to the People demands accommodation of both majority and minority points of view in the country, on governance. Giving priority to “sweeping election mandates” and confusing that kind of populism with democracy, denies the responsibility to respect the views of all citizens, on their aspirations for peace and progress. Election majorities are at best temporary phenomenon. The long term interests of the People in accountable governance go beyond electoral politics. We are at a point in history where a large majority of citizens are tired of democracy and want governance to be the sole responsibility of a single popular leader, who commands confidence. They sincerely believe that handing over the country on a “bulath hurulla” to a strong and popular leader will lead Sri Lanka into a glorious future of “kiri and pani”. They are not aware of or have forgotten the lessons of history, and the manner in which a government elected by the people through the Franchise, (the “heart and soul of democracy” as eloquently described by Professor GL Pieris) transforms itself into a totalitarian dictatorship. This is a point of view that is understandable, even if one may disagree with it. What is more difficult to understand is how professionals and academics who should lead the nation towards good governance can describe authoritarian dictatorial exercise of executive power by a single individual, without any checks and balances by other institutions as the quintessential form of “democratic ” governance. This country has experienced and witnessed abuse of political power, in the last few decades. They have seen how governance and the administration of justice has been impacted by abuse of power. Need they be reminded that we have an international record of installing three different Chief Justices in three days- one was “disappeared” from office because of politics, another impeached because of politics, and brought back to office by the successor government for one day, and a third appointed to hold the vacant post. The People have witnessed serious violence and intimidation at elections because of confrontational politics, prosecution or non prosecution of offenders in emblematic cases because of political imperatives , and a person in remand for murder nominated as a candidate for Parliament. Can they be convinced again by Constitutional lawyers speaking eloquently on electronic media, that we have a perfect system of governance and administration of justice, which will be strengthened by going back to a more powerful executive Presidency.? At this critical time it is wise to reflect on what his Lordship HNJ Perera, the last Chief Justice of this country said in the unanimous decision of all the judges of Supreme Court (a Full Bench) in the Dissolution of Parliament case 2018. Citing earlier precedents, and the changes in governance in the 19th Amendment, His Lordship said that ” since 1972 ( when we broke the link to a British sovereign)this country has known no monarch, and the President has not inherited that mantle”. The 20th Amendment is seeking to clothe the President with that mantle. The President and the People must reflect on our national experience on governance, and ask whether a ” monarchy” created by a 20th Amendment to our Constitution, is in the long term interest of the People and the President. Perhaps the then Mahinda Rajapaksea and Professor GL Pieris can reflect on the wise words of their former leader, in 1948 and bring back into governance the values of the 2000 draft Constitution’s system of governance based on parliamentary democracy. They should, with their long experience in governance, give leadership, and save this nation from the crisis and risks inherent in a “single powerful leader” form of governance.

20th Amendment should be about improving checks and balances not just clearing power ambiguities | Daily FT

20th Amendment should be about improving checks and balances not just clearing power ambiguities | Daily FT: The 19th Amendment may have been introduced for many reasons. One reason may have been to curtail the powers of the Executive President and to strengthen the powers of the Legislature instead. ..

ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධන පිළිබදව ඉන්දීය ස්ථාවරය - Basil Fernando

Rule of Law - Basil Fernando

Killings of Dalits in Nepal - Basil Fernando Interviews Rem Bahadur B.K.

SRI LANKA: Death sentence on Rizana Nafeek confirmed (English).Published in October 2010.

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) draws your attention to the appeal made in 2007 into the case of Rizana Nafeek, who went to Saudi Arabia as a maid when she was 17 years old and who was sentenced to

Police and government responsibilities for increasing child abuse - By ...

ඉන්දිරා ගාන්ධි ඒකාධිපතිත්වය කරා යාමට කල උත්සාහය නිශ්ප්‍රභා වූයේ කෙසේද? -...

Monkeying around with the Constitution

link:http://www.sundaytimes.lk/200823/columns/monkeying-around-with-the-constitution-413372.html

Monkeying around with the Constitution

Inexplicably and not without heavy irony, former President Maithripala Sirisena chose to dwell on crop devastation caused by monkeys in Sri Lanka when contributing to the opening debate on the Government’s Policy Statement as Parliament met this week, fresh after a sparkling polls victory by the Rajapaksa headed Sri Lanka Podujana Party (‘pohottuwa’) alliance.

The dark comedy of our Parliament

Led by the alliance of which Sirisena is an unremarkable part, the House includes two parliamentarians on death row, several indicted for criminal misappropriation of public funds and yet others for assault. ‘Pohottuwa’ parliamentarians who threw chilli powder and chairs at the former Speaker Karu Jayasuriya in the unholy fracas during the unsuccessful grab for power in late 2018 are back and in leadership positions. A prime instigator who lobbied a chair at the former Speaker is a senior Minister and the Chief Government Whip.

This is an unmistakable message that party loyalty, despite rowdiness, intimidation and thuggery, will be rewarded in the new dispensation. Perhaps the country’s non-human primates may take umbrage at any comparisons to august parliamentarians elected through public will. Certainly the destruction caused by monkeys attacking crops is far less than the constitutional mayhem brought about by the human species. But was there any symbolism at all in the former President holding forth on these imperatives during the policy debate? It is hard to say given other absurdities that we were privileged to witness.

Another Sirisena loyalist, narrowly surviving the electoral massacre of his colleagues in the recent polls and distinctly vexed at being deputized to handle the subject of batik, came nattily attired in something supposed to be batik but looking more like ink blots on a white shirt. Not content with that mystifying example of sartorial splendour, he then announced that a law will be passed ordering public officers to wear batik clothing to office one day of the week. No doubt this injunction to wrap themselves in exorbitantly priced batik will warm the cockles of the hearts of his intended targets. some of whom find it difficult to even feed their families.

What does ‘one country, one law’ mean?

But to more serious matters. In his inaugural address to Parliament on Thursday, the President promised, ‘one country, one law’ for the people of Sri Lanka. Now this statement can be taken in various ways. In its most positive meaning, this connotes the equality of the law, signifying that the hand of the law will be worked fairly and justly against all. Yet, with an attorney of Muslim ethnicity  still imprisoned for months as his lawyers plead the absence of due process of the law and a criminal investigator legally lynched for his termerity to go against the Rajapaksas during the previous regime, it is most difficult to believe in the benign application of this ‘one law’ principle.

On the other hand, the Presidential promise may mean that a steamroller Rajapaksa parliamentary majority will absorb religious and ethnic minorities within the majority. Thus we come to the vexed matter of Sri Lanka’s personal laws, some of which are Indubitably problematic as the struggle of gender activists to reform Muslim personal laws show. However, reform and change of these laws must be in a consultative and collaborative manner, not in the majority stamping its constitutional will on the minority. Rudely cutting up, let alone snipping away at the shreds of the country’s multi-ethnic, multi-religious constitutional fabric, already in tatters after decades of vicious conflict will only lead to greater discontent, rebellion and ultimately revolt.

As previously observed, the post General Elections 2020 mantra of development over the Constitution is incredibly simplistic. How exactly will economic development be sustained in our fragile economic state if isolationist policies and an overwhelmingly majoritarian ethos is inflicted on the people through constitutional change of the Nation-State? Leaving intact other reforms as a sop to please the easily reassured will not suffice. Neither will naive undertakings of ensuring prosperity through ‘developing the land.’ Did these policies of ‘development as the cure’ work during the Mahinda Rajapaksa Presidency of 2010-2014?

Political sins and canny propaganda

What is different this time around, excepting the tremendous fury of the populace with ‘yahapalanaya’ sins? This was the unfortunate driver which handed an overwhelming mandate to the Rajapaksa-led alliance that is now being interpreted in convenient ways. Meanwhile, it is interesting that some within the Government propose to make the constitutional commissions ‘more independent’ rather than scrapping them. Exactly how is this to be done, pray? Is that independence to be secured by giving the President the sole power of appointment of its members? That would be nonsensical.

Or will these commissions be placed under ministerial control? That would be tragic. An independent Elections Commission, despite all the sticks and stones thrown at its members, was responsible for an eminently successful election notwithstanding risks posed by covid-19. Heaping all the blame of making ‘governance impossible’ on the Constitutional Council (CC) and the constitutional commissions is pure propaganda. Pre and post 2015, governance was made impossible because of impossible politicians pure and simple. Politicians constituted the majority in the 19th Amendment’s CC on a strategic choice of the ‘yahapalanaya’ Government and the Rajapaksa-led Opposition.

This was a compromise that civil society, (or elements thereto running about in the corridors of power at the time), should never have agreed to.The appointment of an atrocious Inspector General of Police (IGP) is often quoted to find fault with the 19th Amendment. But as said ad nauseam, this officer could have been removed on a mere parliamentary majority under the Removal of Officers (Procedure) Act (No. 5 of 2002) for ‘gross neglect of duty.’ This did not happen during the short-lived Rajapaksa Prime Ministership in October 2018 later ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or even after the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks. Instead the IGP was jailed and we had the farce of a perpetual ‘acting’ IGP.

Let us be done with pretty words

In the final result, Sri Lanka’s political consensus at all times has been anti-governance, which is why the 17th Amendment and the 19th Amendment both failed. At the last chance we had, the 19th Amendment’s CC, now possibly facing the executioner’s axe, should have followed transparent and regulated/gazetted procedures. Granted, on all accounts, the CC’s functioning was consensual and amicable. The problem was in the absence of publicly accountable processes. And ‘independent’ commissions, however they are constituted, are the sum total of their members. Even if the appointment process is transparent to the highest degree possible, this is useless if men and women of capacity, commitment and principle do not consent to serve.

So let us be done with pretty words of making anything ‘more independent’ and sweeping promises of ‘one law for all.’ Let that not be the final insult to the Sri Lankan citizenry now reposing disconcertingly transcendant hope in a ‘new’ legislative wineskin with ‘old’ wine, some waxing eloquent on monkeys and others issuing commands on the wearing of batik. As the Rajapaksa faithful cheer, a leading Buddhist prelate proclaims that ‘Mahinda Rajapaksa is a Dhamma, a religion and a philosophy’ and the depleted if not pitifully de-legitimised Opposition whimper, the Constitution is set to be overhauled in the shadow of Sri Lanka’s return to dynastic family rule.

Dark comedy may be, in fact, all that we are left with.

An advanced online free human rights and rule of law training program .

 An Announcement

Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) will hold an advanced human rights and rule of law training program from 5th September 2020 (Saturday).  This program will be conducted in English. Previously, a similar program was conducted in Sinhala. (You are encouraged to view these discussions on YouTube through the following link https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNZfaUHYIWbrNDqApxRZTuw)

For registration and other details contact

1.       Inoma Karunathilaka  - 0773938197

2.       Kingsley Karunarathne  - 0716884512

of the Rule of Law forum

The subject covered will be,

·         The evolution of the notion of human dignity within the Sri Lankan context: developments and setbacks

·         The idea of the protection of the individual in the Sri Lankan context: developments and setbacks, and present day circumstances

·         Inter-sectional rights/common problems affecting the implementation of the human rights of all sectors due to institutional limitations

·         Specific problems relating to fair trial in the Sri Lankan context

·         The tradition of unequal and disproportionate punishment and how this is reflected in present day practices

·         The basic rule of law principles

·         Other issues related to these topics

The training will consist of 3 discussions (two hours each). Participants will be referred to readings and materials available on YouTube and other sources. They will be also expected to write an essay on the any one of the topics mentioned above.

The participants will be encouraged to send in any questions for clarifications arising out of these discussions through email exchanges to the AHRC staff making presentations.

All those who successfully complete the above requirements will be issued a certificate to that effect by the AHRC.

They will also be provided with further materials in the future on the above-mentioned issues.

 Dead line- on or before 3th September 2020

Register in advance for this meeting:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJctf-mvqDkqHtIRl6R88CSEfXmGDZ-S0NPF

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.  

සුන්දර කුල ක්‍රමය ගැන ජැක්සන් ඇන්තනීගේ මතය සාධාරණද? (Hermeneutics) - Bas...

නිවටකමේ පරිණාමය (Hermeneutics) - Basil Fernando #SririLanka #Hermeneuti...

Lanka set for sweeping constitutional changes- Business Standard 10/08/2020

Lanka set for sweeping constitutional changes

• Business Standard
• 10 Aug 2020
• ADITI PHADNIS

Gotabaya Rajapaksa ( right) as president and his brother Mahinda as prime minister can do exactly as they like with no confusion about dual poles of power

Former Sri Lanka Prime Minister Ranil Wickeremesinghe was the embodiment of self-confidence as he, a week ahead of the country’s parliamentary election, told reporters: “The higher the number of votes cast, the better for the UNP (United National Party, the biggest Opposition party in the outgoing Parliament).”

On August 5, the election day, just over 12 million people voted (12,343,309) — around 71 per cent of all registered voters, lower than the 77 per cent in the last parliamentary election that brought Wickremesinghe to power. But on 5 August 2020, the UNP could win just one seat out of a total of 225. Wickeremesinghe lost his seat.

Although everyone expected the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) to win, the proportion of the landslide victory is staggering. This means that now the Rajapaksa administration — Gotabaya Rajapaksa as president and his brother Mahinda as prime minister — can do exactly as it likes with no confusion about dual poles of power. In the last government, President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickeremesinghe squabbled, both publicly and privately.

The worst outcome of this that could happen, happened. The Easter Sunday bombings (2019) by radical Islamists was the result of intelligence warnings being ignored and crossed wires in the chain of command. It could easily have been avoided.

While the people of Sri Lanka have punished Wickeremesinghe, Sirisena won his seat from Polonnaruwa, one of the high seats of Sinhala Buddhist thinking, with the highest number of votes. This tells us about the depth of the endorsement for Sinhala Buddhism as principal political ideology of the nation, going forward.

An analysis of the outcome

This election is going to be a turning point for

Sri Lanka for many reasons. In the last parliamentary election, the UNP was able to present such a good showing mainly because of its stellar performance in the island’s north and east, dominated by Sri Lanka’s minorities — the Muslims and Tamils. Mahinda was president and Gotabaya was defence minister when V Prabhakaran, the leader guerilla group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), was killed in 2009 following a military campaign by the Sri Lanka Army. Prabhakaran was seen as a symbol of the protector of Tamil identity, erased by the Rajapaksas. In the previous election, the Tamils voted for Tamil parties but also for the UNP in large numbers. This gave an edge to the UNP, helping it form the government.

This time, there is a change. In the Tamildominated Jaffna and Wanni provinces, the popularity of the Tamil parties has declined and affiliates of the Rajapaksa-led SLPP have managed to win some seats, on the back of promises of employment, infrastructure, and other bijli- sadak-paani issues. And the voters have been enthusiastic: Jaffna has not seen such a large turnout (above 76 per cent) for decades. In the two regions, the turnout was higher than the national average. Even in the Muslim-dominated areas, the SLPP managed to win a few.

What all this means

If the last government was plagued by lack of leadership and division, this government now doesn’t need to make any political compromises. It has the numbers to deliver sweeping constitutional changes to increase the executive authority of the presidency, as promised by the Rajapaksas in both this and earlier presidential elections.

The issue is also the 19th Amendment, which aims to correct the asymmetry between the president’s and the prime minister’s powers. The amendment aims to vastly reduce the executive powers of the president, distributing them evenly between the prime minister, Parliament, and other democratic institutions. The amendment flows from the belief that the weakening of the presidency led to inefficient governance and weak security policies. Of course, the downside is that unless crafted with proper checks and balances, and given the underlay of family ties, the new system could end up being worse than the old one.

Foreign policy implications

It goes without saying that the new government is going to favour China. And the tilt could be more than previously imagined because of Sri Lanka’s economic problems as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. At the end of 2019, the country's external debt stood at 67 per cent of its $84 billion GDP. Many of these debts in the public sector are due later this year, at a time when slowing economic growth and consistently high imports have meant the country’s foreign reserves are limited.

“With Covid-19, the tourism sector is completely shut, and foreign remittances are declining and exports are disrupted,” political economist Ahilan Kadirgamar told local reporters. Fitch Ratings says: “Sri Lanka’s stressed external liquidity position is set to remain a weakness for the country’s credit profile. Policymakers may be able to offer more clarity about their economic agenda once elections are held on August 5, but hurdles to accessing additional external financing support will persist.” This means economic priorities will drive foreign policy stances. For India, this may spell trouble as its leverage in the island is now extremely low. 

Historic victory for the baby SLPP, but it must fulfil pledges- Sunday Times 09/08/2020.

 

Historic victory for the baby SLPP, but it must fulfil pledges

• Sunday Times (Sri Lanka)
• 9 Aug 2020
• By Our Political Editor

● Basil Rajapaksa’s strategy works; President gets two-thirds majority to carry out his programme

● UNP suffers its worst-ever defeat, but Ranil indicates he will stay on as leader

● Premadasa’s SJB fares significantly well, but fails to secure Sinhala-Buddhist vote despite campaigning in that direction

Sri Lanka’s voters have spoken, spoken so eloquently at Wednesday’s parliamentary elections where records tumbled, and political history was created.

The first was the landslide 145-seat victory the

Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP)-led alliance won, much to the surprise of even President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa. Both, like many others in their ilk, had thought of a lesser number though confident of a comfortable majority.

There was no issue over being short of just five seats for a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Four other smaller political parties which favour the SLPP and won five seats will bring the total to 150. They are Eelam People’s Democratic Party leader Douglas Devananda from the Jaffna District and Kulasingham Thileepan from the Wanni District (two seats). Others are A.L.M. Athaullah, representing the National Congress (Digamadulla District); Sivanesatthurai Chandrakanthan (alias Pillayan, his nom de guerre as an LTTE cadre earlier) from the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai

Pulikal (TMVP) and Angajan Ramanathan (Jaffna District) who contested on the Sri Lanka Freedom Party ticket. In addition, a Tamil National Alliance (TNA) politician from the North is also expected to join in.

Up to now, without the expected addition, that will mean 149 seats. Leaving a seat for the new Speaker of Parliament, what is required to pass a resolution or legislation with a two-thirds vote would only require one more – which is within easy reach of the alliance. The Proportional Representation system, introduced with the 1978 Constitution, has not stretched so much unusually to one political grouping, the SLPP. Its aim was to ensure broader representation by candidates from political parties and independent groups. Therein lay an important message -most voters had made up their mind, despite the Covid-19 pandemic, in opting for the SLPP. There are a number of reasons for it. That includes the voter disgust over the conduct of opposition members. This was mostly when they were in power as the Yahapalana (good governance) government. Their lapses were far too many.

It was largely allegations of bribery and corruption against those of the previous administration. Those accusations were not matched by any action. Most cases were suppressed. Ministers were known to have pussy footed and even changed the course of some investigations. At the end, the same accusations befell those in the Yahapalana government, with most claiming that the wrongdoings were to a much higher degree. Some of the major transactions came to light and they continued as if nothing had happened.

In this exercise, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Gotabaya, Basil, and members of their families then became the targets and accusations continued. Then came a rapid transformation of the political landscape. Ahead of the local council elections in February 2018, Basil Rajapaksa formed the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna

(SLPP). It polled 40% of the votes (15.7 million were eligible to vote) and won the highest number of seats and local authorities. Then at the presidential election in November, last year, SLPP candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa won 52.25% or 6.9 million votes. Another strategy of Basil Rajapaksa paid off last Wednesday. It was he who had asked the SLFP to contest the Jaffna district instead of fielding a candidate from his own party. Similarly, he urged M.L.A.M. Athaullah to contest under the National Congress ticket. They won.

The two-and-half-year-old SLPP has thus placed a firm footprint in Sri Lanka’s political firmament. Wednesday’s elections furthermore displayed the SLPP’s multi-dimensional direction. That was the addition of new parliamentarians from Viyathmaga, Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s own political organisation. They have joined the traditional followers at onetime SLFP and thereafter the SLPP. Until now, some of them have only been named to top official positions in Sri Lanka and abroad. A few examples -- Nalaka Godahewa came first on preference votes in the Gampaha district polling 325,429 and Professor Channa Jayasumana with 125,980 came second in the Anuradhapura district. Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera came first in preference votes winning 328,092 votes in the Colombo district. Viyathmaga candidates have also found places in the SLPP National List and are set to become Cabinet Ministers.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa will swear-in brother Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister at a ceremony at the Kelaniya Raja Maha Vihare today. Thereafter, the new cabinet of ministers, not expected to exceed 26, was to be appointed tomorrow at a ceremony at the Sri Dalada Maligawa in Kandy. It was to be held at the Magul Maduwa (Auidience Hall). It has now been put off till Friday August 14. This indicates a delay in Cabinet formation with many aspirants claiming positions.

The new Speaker is expected to be Chamal

Rajapaksa, who has previously held this position. Among new faces in the Cabinet are most likely to be Maithripala Sirisena, Namal Rajapaksa, Udaya Gammanpila and Ali Sabry.

Premier Rajapaksa polled the highest number of preference votes. Contesting from the Kurunegala district, he received 527,364 votes. The earlier record was held by former Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe who won 500,566 votes in the Colombo district at the 2015 parliamentary elections.

On Friday, the SLPP handed in a list of 17 names of those who will be on their National List. They are: Prof G.L Peiris, Sagara Kariyawasam (lawyer/SLPP Secretary), Mohamed Ali Sabry (lawyer), Jayantha Weerasinghe (lawyer), Professor Charitha Herath (who is an expert in media matters), Manjula Dissanayake, Senior Professor, Gevindu Kumarathunga, Mohammad Muzzammil, Prof Tissa Vitharana, Engineer Yadamini Gunawardena (son of Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena), Dr Surendra Ragavan, (former Northern Province Governor), Tiran Alles (businessman and publisher),

Dr Seetha Arambepola, Jayantha Ketagoda and Mohomad Faleel Marjan. There are some potential ministerial, state minister and deputy minister candidates from this National List.

There were three other important measures adopted by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. They won much traction in the SLPP polls campaign. One was the measures taken to contain the deadly Covid-19 from spreading. At present the number of those afflicted by the disease remains below 3,000 with only 11 deaths. The other is the major crackdowns he ordered on the illegal drug trade and the bosses who ran them, even from jails together with an order to crackdown on the underworld. His “meet the people” election campaign where many questions on these issues were raised was much in focus and won him wider public support. That, together with Premier Rajapaksa’s campaign was cause for victory.

UNP’S CATASTROPHE

The two-and-half year-old baby SLPP’s victory dealt a severe blow to the United National Party (UNP). It won no Parliament representation barring one -- a National List position. The UNP polled only 249,435 votes countrywide. This is a mere 2.15% of the votes cast. As can be observed, twice that number of votes came for Premier Rajapaksa through preference votes in Kurunegala district. This is in marked contrast to 5,098,916 or 45.66 % of the votes UNP received at the 2015 parliamentary elections. Other than that, rejected votes countrywide on Wednesday's poll amounted to 744,373 or 4.58%. That is much more than the votes the UNP polled throughout Sri Lanka. The spoilt could include would-be UNP voters who were angry over the party breakup. Quite clearly, in the four and half years the UNP was in power, its support base had deteriorated at the grassroots level and its branch organizations had remained in disarray.

It was a humiliating defeat was for UNP leader and former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. Onetime Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake, who easily ran the costliest high-profile campaign in Colombo, also lost like many other UNP ministers and stalwarts. They included Navin Dissanayake (Nuwara Eliya district), Vajira Abeywardena (Galle district), Akila Viraj Kariyawasam (Kurunegala district), Arjuna Ranatunga (Gampaha district) and Daya Gamage (Colombo district). Other major UNP losses -- Palitha Thevarapperuma and Lakshman Wijemanne (Kalutara district), Palitha Range Bandara (Puttalam district), Lakshman Seneviratne and Ravi Samaraweera (Badulla district), Wasantha Aluvihare and Ranjith Aluvihare (Matale district), Vijayakala Maheswaran (Jaffna district) and Anoma Gamage (Digamadulla district).

Some of the controversial issues during the tenure of UNP’s Yahapalana government did affect its public image. Main among them is the Central Bank bond scam over which President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has declared during the campaign trail that “action will be taken against all those involved.” Another is the attack by Muslim extremists on Easter Sunday last year. The attacks left 268 men, women, and children dead. Some startling details have unfolded in the recent weeks.

This has disproved or contradicted the findings of a Parliamentary Select Committee known to have protected some former ruling party personalities. The State Intelligence Service (SIS) then Director, Nilantha Jayawardena, head of the country’s premier agency told the Commission that he had warned the then Law and Order Minister Sagala Ratnayake, a year before the attacks about serious threats. Ratnayake also functioned as Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister. Of course, compounding all these factors was the internecine fighting that led to a division in the party and the exit of a larger faction.

As results of postal voting followed by electoral constituencies began flowing through the electronic media on Thursday, one factor was becoming increasingly clear. The UNP was being mentioned almost every time as taking the fourth place – that is after the SLPP, the Samagi

Jana Balavegaya, and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna- led National People’s Power (NPP). In fact, the JVP recorded a marginal increase in its vote base compared to the 2015 parliamentary elections. It is amidst this that the Galle district defeated candidate, Vajira Abeywardena, a onetime minister, held a hurriedly summoned news conference on Thursday afternoon.

He said that the split in the party was not a big issue and there was no need to change UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe. He claimed that

the party was in the process of being re-organised in 2019 when the presidential elections were called. He also claimed that what was required in the party was tough discipline. Those remarks, coming just when the results were being released, make clear Abeywardena wanted Ranil Wickremesinghe to continue as leader. The question is whether he has received his leader’s concurrence before making a public plea. One source familiar with the developments said he did. This is over an issue that was one of the main causes for Wickremesinghe and his party’s defeat. He refused calls to cede the leadership to Premadasa. Besides this, there is also the issue of who will represent the UNP on the National List slot. The UNP policy has been that it will not give National List seats to those who have lost at the elections. It is highly unlikely Wickremesinghe will go for that slot, said a leading UNPer who did not wish to be named.

UNP General Secretary Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, however, conceded on Friday that “people have given a mandate to the Sri Lanka Podujana Party (SLPP)” and declared that the UNP is “prepared to accept responsibility “for failures and shortcomings.” Here is the full text of the statement:

“The United National Party (UNP) wishes to convey its appreciation to the National Elections Commission for conducting the 2020 Parliamentary Elections successfully. It is the 19th Amendment brought by our Government that ensured this election was conducted in a free and peaceful manner. The UNP also wishes to take this opportunity to thank all public officers, tri-forces and the police who got involved in conducting a free and fair election. This election was interrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic which partly contributed to the destruction of our economy.

“The UNP is the only party which presented a strategy to control COVID-19 and to resuscitate and strengthen the home economy. However, the people have given a massive mandate to the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna and the UNP has encountered the greatest setback in its history despite many achievements which brought long-lasting benefits to the country and the people. As a party we faced many challenges internally as well as externally.

“The UNP is prepared to accept the responsibility for failures and shortcomings, both the result of its own actions and the actions of others. It is evident that in this election the political parties based on policies have been overtaken by political movements. This could lead to an unstable political situation in the years to come. The UNP would like to appeal to its supporters and the general public to accept the outcome of the election peacefully. The party will be re-organised and restructured to face the challenges and we will be moving forward with determination and vigour as has been done on previous occasions.”

It is noteworthy to mention that the UNP statement reiterates that “the party will be re-organised and restructured to face the challenges ….” Is this not an assertion that have been made ad nause

um when the party was embroiled in a crisis situation? No doubt, it is a public admission that the party had not been, contrary to all pledges, re-organised or restructured. It went to the poll without that. Would that satisfy the concerns of the UNP supporters? What of the formidable group that broke away to form the

Samagi Jana Balavegaya? What was their grouse? Is there no move to win them back, at least at the grassroots level? What is needed for that and also to regain UNP’s credibility? These questions appear to be overlooked.

On Friday, UNP leader Wickremesinghe and General Secretary Akila Viraj Kariyawasam met some members of the Working Committee and office bearers at the party headquarters in Srikotha, in Rajagiriya. Many were invited but only a few turned up. Wickremesinghe declared that he would now re-build the party from zero or scratch onwards -- the first formal statement that suggests that he wants to continue as UNP leader. Kariyawasam said he was “not discouraged” by the election results and others too should not be. The defeat should be taken as a challenge to build a strong and forceful party, he pointed out. Would that mean Kariyawasam would continue as UNP’s General Secretary too?

Srikotha has come under police guard since Thursday after fears that SJB factions would take control. Such a move was ruled out by their leader, Sajith Premadasa at a news conference yesterday. He said the question would not arise since his party would not re-join the UNP.

THE SJB SAGA

Like the SLPP, which is a two-and-halfyear-old political party, the SJB is an infant, less than six months old. Its garnering 2,771,980 or 23.99 % of the votes cast has won it 54 seats including seven from the National List. A close perusal of its win highlights an incredibly significant message. In most instances, the SJB has received a substantial volume of votes from the minority communities, Tamils, Muslims, and even Christians. At least 18 of their MPs are Muslims and Tamils. Thus, quite clearly, the SJB has not garnered a higher number of Sinhala Buddhist votes. For example, in the Kandy district, the only Sinhala MP is Lakshman Kiriella. In the Colombo district, it is only Premadasa and Champika Ranawaka.

The votes have gone mostly to the SLPP underscoring a new and important reality. Even the SJB’s other front-line leaders are from different parties. Examples: Champika Ranawaka, Mano Ganesan, Rauff Hakeem and Rishad Bathiuddin. Former ministers P. Harrison and Chandrani Bandara, now with the SJB, who contested from the Anuradhapura district were defeated.

Others who lost include A.H.M. Fowzie, Sujeeva Senasinghe and Hirunika Premachandra (Colombo district); Ajith Manapperuma, Vijith Vijayamuni Zoysa, Chatura Senaratne and Edward Gunasekera (Gampaha district); Ajith B. Perera (Kalutara district); Piyasena Gamage (Galle district); Indika Bandaranayake (Kurunegala district); Ananda Kumarasiri (Moneragala district); Ali Zahir Mowlana (contested as SLMC candidate from Batticaloa district) and Karunaratne Paranavithane (Ratnapura district),

Noticeably, there was also a marked shift in SJB campaigning by Premadasa and some of his close colleagues in the party. In a bid to woo the Sinhala Buddhist vote, they leaned on a good volume of nationalistic rhetoric.

Even this did not pay off but only drew the votes of the minorities. This was amidst the absence of key players like Mangala Samaraweera, Malik Samarawickrema and Kabir Hashim (who was busy with his own campaign) who were responsible for forming the SJB.

Instead, non-UNPers including Tissa Attanayake (SJB National Organiser), Shiral Lakthilaka (earlier Senior Advisor to former President Maithripala Sirisena), Dayan Jayatilleke and others had become Premadasa’s think tank. Thus, the UNP’s secular ideals were almost lost and the SJB was charting a new course wittingly or unwittingly. This, no doubt, will become a formidable challenge for Premadasa in the weeks and months to come. He has to keep his 54 MPs together, that too for five years barring any eventuality.

It is also clear from the votes cast for the JVP led Jathika Jana Balavegaya (National People’s Power), that a sizeable segment of UNP votes had gone to the NPP. Notably, the JVP (through the NPP) has secured a marginal increase in votes as against the 2015 parliamentary elections. This is while another sizeable segment refrained from voting either for the UNP or the SJB in the light of their split. JVP’s Sunil Handunetti lost in the Matara district. He served as Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE). He was widely respected for his dispassionate outlook towards various issues and for avoiding politics in this role.

Here are a few examples from different electoral districts:

These southern electorates, besides others, are largely Sinhala Buddhist strongholds. The wide disparity in the margins show that the SJB has not been able to chip into those votes.

Yesterday, former Chairman of the UNP and now with the SJB, Kabir Hashim telephoned his leader, Sajith Premadasa and urged him to name Mayantha Dissanayake on the National List. Dissanayake did not contest Wednesday’s elections reportedly at the request of SJB Kandy district candidate Lakshman Kiriella. Hashim was elected from the Kegalle district while Kiriella too won. Hashim pointed out that Dissanayake brother of Naveen Dissanayake (UNP) who was defeated in the Nuwara Eliya district, had been assured a National List position if he did not enter the polls fray.

EQUATIONS CHANGE IN THE NORTH

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) which contested northern and eastern polling districts under the Ilankai Tamil

Arasu Katchi also suffered a blow. The 16 seats it held in Parliament have now been reduced to ten – a reality which lowers its political clout. This is particularly in the backdrop of the two-thirds majority the SLPP has received obviating the need to bargain on any deal with the SLPP-led government. Moreover, Douglas Devananda, tipped to be a cabinet minister and Angajan Ramanathan, will overshadow the TNA when it comes to negotiations with the government. The TNA has already lent cause to it by demanding in its manifesto a federal set up under a unitary state. Past political developments have made the word “federal” a dirty one. The TNA also sought a re-merger of the north and east.

There was commotion at the Jaffna counting centre in the early hours of Friday morning when preference votes of the electorate were being counted. One of the main candidates, Abraham Sumanthiran, was not present for some time. When he returned in the wee hours of Friday, accompanied by his supporters, Police blocked the entry of others barring the candidate. The crowd hurled bottles and stones at the Police. A team of STF commandos rounded up a few during the commotion. Crowds then began hurling abuse at Sumanthiran but he was safely escorted by the Police when he moved. A supporter of Angajan Ramanathan was injured and hospitalised.

Around that time, Raviraj Shasikala, who was then in second position, was escorted away. Videos on the melee are widely circulating not only in Sri Lanka but also in some European capitals. She is the wife of Nadarajah Raviraj, a lawyer, MP, and onetime Mayor of Jaffna. He was shot dead in Colombo in 2006. She has been elected from the Jaffna district together with C.V. Wigneswaran and Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam. In a sense, this means that there is now representation for hard-line Tamil opinion in Parliament with the entry of the two newcomers. A setback for the TNA was the defeat of its leader, Mavai Senathirajah and Jaffna Mayor Emmanuel Arnold, who took leave to contest.

OUTLOOK

Wednesday’s poll began on a slow note with a national average of 25 percent of the votes cast in the forenoon, according to an Election Commission official. This prompted the Commission to believe polling would not go beyond 55%. Concerned EC officials urged state run media, particularly the radio, to make repeated appeals to the voters to go and vote. The announcement said there was no threat of coronavirus since health guidelines were in force in all polling stations.

This could be a contributory factor. Polling in the afternoon became brisk and the voter turnout rose to 71 % at the end of polls, still 6% lower than the 2015 parliamentary election. There were no major incidents barring a murder in Anuradhapura but it was not related to polls.

The man who was at the helm of the poll, Mahinda Deshapriya, received both bouquets and brickbats during the campaign. He was also in an unenviable position due to his views coming into conflict with other members of the EC, sometimes very unfairly. These notwithstanding, however, all credit should go to Deshapriya, for conducting a trouble free, partiality-claims free and orderly parliamentary election, his last during his stint.

Throughout the polls campaign, SLPP leaders have reiterated that they would fulfil the pledges made to the people. They had earlier pointed out that the absence of a Parliament hindered the enforcement of most of them. Now, a new Parliament is in place and will meet for the first time on August 20. So, it is now up to them to keep their word. They are aware that otherwise they could face the same fate that befell the UNP -- a total public rejection.