Ill conceived and untimely

Champika Ranawaka on why the JHU is opposed to the 19th Amendment:

Power and Energy Minister and Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) General Secretary, Patali Champika Ranawaka lashed out at the proposed 19th Amendment calling it ill- conceived and untimely. He said corruption cases that have been highlighted were not moving and the culprits were not brought to book and that cases were kept open for as long as possible to cause opponents maximum damage, while people seeking justice are made to wait. Attributing it to unintentional or intentional reasons. He said the Avant Garde case where former Defence Secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was grilled and the RADA case in which Tiran Alles's statement was recorded, would die a natural death, since someone was 'bought over' by somebody.

by Manjula Fernando

Excerpts of the interview,

Q:It is alleged that you opposed the proposed 19th Amendment because of your ambitions on running for Presidency one day?

Our stance with regard to the 19th Amendment has now been endorsed by the Supreme Court.

There are many reasons to oppose the 19-A. It is an incomplete document. The common candidate Maithripala Sirisena's manifesto clearly noted, three areas where constitutional amendments will be effected. The first is the Executive Presidency, second is the Independent Commissions, the third is the electoral system.

The promise made on electoral reform have been completely neglected for the single reason that it is not supporting the political strategy of the Prime Minister.

He believes he can win the election if Parliament is dissolved as soon as possible. The same strategy has been adopted by the JVP. They too are for an immediate dissolution of Parliament.This is wrong.

President Maithripala Sirisena received this huge mandate from the people to implement what was promised in his manifesto, a key component of which is changing the electoral system.

When the discussions started in January 2015, I insisted there should be a formula for a new mixed electoral system. There were many models that could have been discussed. But unfortunately the talks were deliberately delayed.

The other reason is that this proposed 19th Amendment is going against people's sovereignty. Although many are ill-informed of this, the 1972 Constitution, identified the President as the Head of State, Head of Executive, and the Head of the Armed Forces yet the President is powerless.

Despite having all these titles, he was just a ceremonial President because he was not the Head of Government or Cabinet. The President had to act always on the advice of the Prime Minister.

The PM had the power to select subjects, ministerial portfolios and the Ministers. But there the President was nominated by the elected Prime Minister and the President was the first citizen.

In 1977, the Constitution was changed and J.R.Jayawardena took over executive power from the Prime Minister. It clearly stated that the Prime Minister shall be the Head of State, Head of Executive, Head of Government and Head of the Armed Forces. What was proposed by the PM on March 13, is exactly the 1972 Constitution, where the President becomes a ceremonial figurehead.

Our third argument is that there is no mandate to do what the PM had proposed. We categorically said that we will not be holding a referendum, meaning that we will avoid any constitutional change, which is subject to a referendum. A 1972 type of a ceremonial presidency cannot be established without a referendum.

Q: Didn't the constituent parties of the Government discuss the 19-A. The JHU is a key member of the Government and it seems that you are trying to rock the boat for reasons only known to you ?

When I vehemently opposed the 19-A, and upon my insistence, on March 15, a meeting attended by leaders the SLFP, UNP and the other parties of the national government was held to discuss the 19-A. At this meeting we agreed not to take away the ‘Head of Government’ title from the President.More importantly we agreed that eight executive powers vested with the President, that gave him dictatorial status, to be pruned or removed.

Thus, the appointment of ministers at his will, division of subjects at his will, dissolution of parliament at his will, appointment of ministry secretaries and higher judges, the immunity enjoyed by the President from lawsuits, the powers enjoyed by the President to pardon any convict was to be pruned or taken away in addition to limiting the President's term of office to two. The party leaders agreed and identified the above as unlimited powers that needed axing or diluting.

Then after the meeting, the party leaders asked the legal experts who were involved in drafting the Prime Minister's 19-A, to draft it accordingly.

These proposals were approved by the Cabinet subsequently. I have the Cabinet minute to prove my words.

Q: Why are you opposing it now, if the party leaders including the JHU agreed to the proposals?

The Prime Minister shrewdly avoided this and at the following Cabinet meeting on March 23, he presented a completely different set of proposals again on the lines of the 1972 Constitution. We had no option but to oppose the ill-conceived 19-A. The Prime Minister's actions were in clear violation of the Cabinet decision.

What was more appalling is that he gazetted, not even what was presented in the Cabinet but a very contradictory and ill-conceived document.

The first two to three pages of this gazette notice refer to President as head of Government and the final pages refer to the Prime Minister as the head of Government. How can two people be the head of Government?

He shrewdly presented a second document - the powers vested with the Prime Minister - to the Supreme Court through the Attorney General. It is a blatant violation of the Constitution. Article 78-1 of the Constitution, clearly stipulates that any constitutional amendment needs to be gazetted seven days before it reaches the SC, so that the people can petition the Supreme Court against any inconsistency.

Apparently this whole process clearly goes against good governance and democratic principles. The proposals in the 19-A outline only the Prime Minster's view, others’ views have been completely ignored.

The Supreme Court has rejected his unconstitutional proposals and they have flatly refused to accept Prime Minister as head of Government without a referendum.

This is what we have been voicing and now our position has been endorsed by the SC.The conspiracy to pass the 19-A has now been exposed. We accept the Supreme Court determination which depicts the independence of the judiciary. The Attorney General's argument was against the constitution, he represented the Government, but the SC determination reflected the people's will.

We must bring in electoral reforms, clear the technical issues with regard to the Independent Commissions and pass the bill as soon as possible in Parliament.

Q: The 19-A was to be taken up for debate on Thursday and Friday?

That was Anura Kumara Dissanayake's statement. We do not care about their time frames, whether they like it or not, Parliament is not going to be dissolved on April 23 without passing the two amendments.

Q: What about electoral reforms, do you believe a system that is agreeable to all parties can be introduced that soon?

It has to be done expeditiously. There are pessimistic views that delimitation of electorates may take two years or so. This is not true. The Elections Commissioner clearly said if the number of seats are to be reduced, there is an issue but if the number of seats are to be increased, it can be done within a matter of days.

I agree that the ratio of the mixed system will be a contentious issue among different political parties but still it will not take more than three months to be settled.

Q: The JHU has a certain idea about the ratio between the preferential and first past the post systems as well as the size of the national list?

Yes, it is there in the Maithri Manifesto. We believe the new electoral system should be a mix of the three, 158 members under the constituencies, 75 members under the district PR system (using best loser method) and 25 members under the national list.

Those who win the election should have the majority in Parliament. It is our view that the minor political groups, whether they represent communities or ideologies should have a representation in the House.

Some political parties oppose this system on the mere assumption that their candidates will fail to secure seats. In that case the JHU too is a small party. We are here because of the preferential system. But we have to support it for the sake of the people.

Q: Are you going to pull out of the Government, will the National Government be intact till the next election?

The National Government should not be an indefinite arrangement. The constitutional amendments and the electoral reforms should be passed in Parliament as soon as possible and thereafter the House can be dissolved.

Q: What will happen to the 19-A now?

The Supreme Court has said certain changes proposed needed a referendum. If you want to avoid a referendum, erase those amendments that require a referendum. Basically it means revert back to what we agreed on at the Government party leaders meeting.

According to the Supreme Court determination, the following cannot be altered or included without a referendum, who Heads the Cabinet, the President to always act on the advice of the PM, the PM having discretion to choose subjects and persons for the cabinet as well as the powers and functions of state ministers. These executive powers can be only be vested with the President under the present constitution.

Q: Do you think the changes to proposed 19-A to avoid a referendum will come willingly and the proposed law can be passed in Parliament without difficulty?

The Prime Minister has to agree on the changes. What matters is the SLFP and UNP thinking. We all agreed that any Article in the constitution that requires a people's mandate to be changed, will not be touched during this national government set up. The PM must accept the reality. He politically got defeated in the Supreme Court, his strategy to grab executive powers was shot down.

Q: The JHU is ready for the next election?

We are not worried about the elections. We are hopeful of forming a patriotic and energetic new government. The voters must simply reject corrupt politicians and archaic policies and the parties must re-structure and re-brand themselves.

Q: The JHU was one of the key pillars of the new government, it broke rank and came all out to attack the previous regime for corruption, nepotism and lawlessness. People took a bold decision and voted the previous government out. But the same people are now disappointed, there seem to be a delay in bringing the culprits to book. The voters seem to be almost regretting the January 8 election outcome. Your comments?

I partially agree with these sentiments. The culprits who are actually responsible for these huge corruption, are still at large. This is due to three reasons. First the inadequacies within our legal framework, it is a painfully slow process. We are yet to bring former Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle's assasins before courts. According to our justice Minister only 4% of the offenders including criminals in the country get convicted.

In China, the convictions are made within a few weeks being charged.

Unfortunately, those who funded the LTTE, bought weapons for them are still free or being held without convictions. Those who killed thousands during 1987-89 insurgency are still at large.

This is our flopped system which needs radical changes.Secondly certain influential people in the legal system and the political system entertain bribes from the law-breakers and try to delay the cases by hiding or suppressing information or even trying to exonerate these people.Avant Garde investigation was a case in point. Now it is happening to the Reconstruction and Development Agency (RADA)-case for which Tiran Alles was questioned), as well. The next reason is that political actors try to use these corruption and other allegations against their opponents to further their political goals.

Hence, they want the cases to be open as long as possible to cause their opponents the maximum damage while people seeking justice are made to wait.