Sunday Politics

New Constitution:

Debates within ruling coalition over executive presidency
 

Although the national unity government has embarked on its mission to introduce a new constitution to the country, the process has already been marred – at least to some extent - due to differences of opinion between key stakeholders of the government.

At the Presidential election in January, last year, the combined opposition, led by its Presidential candidate Maithripala Sirisena, pledged to abolish the all-powerful Executive Presidency in toto. It also promised to change the current electoral system and democratize the country’s system of governance through various legislative measures.

The first significant step in this direction was the introduction of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, substituting the draconian 18th Amendment placing seamless powers under the Executive President. Although the 19th Amendment was diluted at the last moment by the UPFA who outnumbered the ruling coalition in Parliament at that point, it still included some important provisions to democratize the country’s governance. Among them were the setting up of the independent commissions and transferring some presidential powers to the legislature.

After ensuring the passage of the 19th Amendment in Parliament, President Sirisena promised that the government would embark on further constitutional reforms. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and former Opposition Leader Nimal Siripala de Silva expressed similar viewpoints.

However, there were differences of opinion between the two major political camps over the nature and time frame of constitutional reform. While the SLFP pushed for speedy electoral reforms, the UNP had other priorities. As a result, President Sirisena dissolved Parliament without further reforms and called for an election.

After the election, the UNP, which secured the highest number of seats, entered into a coalition government with the SLFP within the framework of a Memorandum of Understanding. The prime objective of the MoU was to create a common platform for the two rival parties to work together as a government and initiate much-needed political reforms. Thanks to the MoU, a sizable proportion of UPFA MPs representing the SLFP, including some who could not secure their seats at the Parliamentary election, were given ministerial and deputy ministerial portfolios.

Delivery time

Now it’s delivery time! As usual, differences of opinion among various stakeholders of the government are now hindering the process. Even before the President presented a motion to the House seeking to convert Parliament into a Constitutional Assembly, the UNP and the SLFP had lengthy arguments over the matter.

The UNP, as promised in its election manifesto, was looking for a total abolition of the Executive Presidency. The Executive Presidency was the key feature of the 1978 constitution and it is linked to almost every aspect of the Constitution. That is why the UNP arrived at the understanding that the total abolition of Executive Presidency will need a new constitution.

According to the UNP think-tank, the proposed new constitution should capture the essence of the Westminster system where the Prime Minister becomes the head of the government and the effective Head of State. The President will not be elected by the people at an election and it will be more or less similar to the Presidency introduced by the 1972 constitution by the Sirimavo Bandaranaike administration.

UPFA elements oppose

But a section of the SLFP, on the other hand, was looking at the possibility of introducing amendments to the current constitution. They also did not like the idea of abolishing the executive presidency in toto.

Even some ultra-nationalist parties of the UPFA held the same view. They were of the view that the total abolition of the executive presidency would weaken the country’s national security and political stability. They also claimed that the executive presidency was instrumental in the war victory against the LTTE, six and a half years ago.

Meanwhile, another section of the SLFP is trying to push electoral reforms before the Constitutional amendment. This was the same tactic they resorted to just before the passage of the 19th Amendment.

It is true that the combined opposition, before the Presidential election last January, promised electoral reforms. However, playing the ‘electoral reforms’ card to block the formulation of a new constitution amounts to political opportunism.

Apart from this, there is another group of SLFP MPs who do not take a clear stand on the whole process.

Among them is former President and Kurunegala District Parliamentarian Mahinda Rajapaksa. When asked about his views on the formulation of a new constitution, Rajapaksa said he had no disagreement with the process.

“More than 6.2 million voted for the abolition of the Executive Presidency. The government should respect their expectations. We don’t have anything against that. But, the introduction of a new constitution should be done according to the provisions of the current constitution. The government can’t overstep the boundaries set by the current constitution. That’s my take on the matter,” the former President remarked when questioned by reporters at a private function recently.

Interestingly, the former President did not make any reference to the weakening of national security or its “negative impact” on the country’s political stability. It looked as if even Rajapaksa was reluctant to buy the argument put forward by some of the parties supporting him.

Kiriella wants ‘inclusive process’

Commenting on the current situation with regard to constitutional reforms, senior Cabinet minister and Leader of the House Lakshman Kiriella told the Sunday Observer that both the President and the Prime Minister were on the same page about the matter.

“The two leaders are very much in agreement on the way forward.

We do not want any party to feel that they have been left out of the process. That is why we are trying our best to arrive at a common ground and reach a consensus when it comes to contentious matters

- Kiriella

The UNP has anyway understood the need for a new constitution and the total abolition of the executive presidency. On the other hand, the SLFP members supporting the President do not have any logical reason to oppose the move as it is the brainchild of the President.

The President himself has said he will fully abolish the executive presidency by 2020. The TNA and the Opposition Leader are also positively engaging in the process. Only the dissident group supporting the Rajapaksas and a section of SLFP MPs have a different opinion on the matter,” he said.

“They (the UPFA dissidents) are now asking for a Parliamentary Select Committee. They need a select committee because they want to say something within the committee and contradict their own positions when they speak in public. But, we have created an open dance floor and now the public can see what every party is doing in this regard. On the other hand, it will give every party the opportunity to be stakeholders in the entire process,” Kiriella said.

“We do not want any party to feel that they have been left out of the process. That is why we are trying our best to arrive at a common ground and reach a consensus when it comes to contentious matters. It cannot be construed as a weakness of the government. We want to rectify mistakes various governments made in the past when formulating new constitutions. We do not want any political party – major or minor – to opt out of this process,” the Leader of House added.

UPFA dissidents

However, there are reasons to speculate that the UPFA dissident group now functioning as part of the Opposition, may even boycott the proceedings of the constitutional assembly in protest over the ruling coalition’s move.

When contacted by the Sunday Observer, a UPFA MP from the dissident camp said that no final decision had been made on the matter.

“If the government is willing to take the proper path to amend the constitution, we have no reason to object. But it is clear that the government is now trying to bulldoze the views of the opposition on the constitutional amendment,” the MP said.

PM reiterates

However, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, last week, assured that he would allow every political party to voice their concerns and propose amendments during the formulation-process of the new constitution. He said this would not be done in a manner that would exclude opposition Parliamentarians.

When he addressed the national Thaipongal Day ceremony at the Weerasingham Hall in Jaffna, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe reiterated his views on the matter. The Prime Minister said drafting of new Constitution would be done in a very open and transparent manner after discussing with and incorporating the views of all 225 MPs representing the House.

The Prime Minister said he would not bring in Constitutional amendments in the manner in which revisions to the 18th Amendment Bill were done by the likes of Prof G L Peiris. The Prime Minister made this remark in the presence of former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and also Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran

I presented the proposal of the President to form a Constitutional Assembly that includes all 225 MPs. It was done in an open manner and we can take the views of Provincial Councilors and the general public too

- PM

who is currently at loggerheads with his own party leadership – the TNA - over multiple issues.

“I presented the proposal of the President to form a Constitutional Assembly that includes all 225 MPs. It was done in an open manner and we can take the views of Provincial Councilors and the general public too. There is no draft Constitutional bill. We are not ready to make Constitutional changes with a junta, as was the case with the 18th Amendment. We request them not to hamper the process of formulating a new Constitution. Many have understood the value of transparency after their defeat. Now they are talking again on Constitutions,” he said.

In his speech in Jaffna, the Prime Minister also fired salvos at a newspaper saying it turned a blind eye when journalists were killed and tortured under the Rajapaksa rule. The Prime Minister charged that such elements were attempting to hamper the government’s “good work”.

Referring to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), Wickremesinghe also observed that the law to detain the terrorist was an outdated law, adding that new laws must be brought in on par with the UN legal mechanisms to combat international terrorist threats.

Meanwhile, civil society groups which were instrumental in bringing the current government into power are now strongly pushing for a new constitution. They have already made plans to organize a series of public events to make the citizens aware of the need for a new constitution sans the executive presidency. They say the government should waste no time and embark on the process.

Wijesuriya’s attack

Distinguished Colombo University don Professor Sarath Wijesuriya, Convener of the National Movement for a Just Society (NMJS), fired cannons at the government last week at its seemingly ‘lethargic’ approach on ensuring good governance. The Professor, who succeeded NMJS founder, the late Ven. Maduluwave Sobhitha Thera, as the Movement’s Convenor, is a key member of the civil society coalition which supported the political change of January 8, 2015. He made these remarks at the launch of his book Hudekalawa in Colombo, last week.

“We ensured the Rajapaksas’ defeat at the last Presidential election. We have no regrets about it. We know that the best leadership choices for the country at the moment are President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. But that does not mean we are entirely happy with the state of affairs in the present government,” Wijesuriya said, commencing his fiery speech.

The professor also directed criticism at the controversial song made to mark President Sirisena’s first anniversary in office. Although the President’s office said it had nothing to do with the song and that there was no ‘official’ song to mark the President’s inauguration, Wijesuriya held the President’s media advisers accountable for the song.

“Those who brought this government to power should maintain a continuous dialogue on its shortcomings. This constructive criticism should be done without vested interests, without expecting perks and privileges from the government.

Those who supported former President Rajapaksa to ascend to power never criticized his government at any cost.

“They became mere yes-men and unconditional stooges of the Rajapaksa family. Today, the same elements who were responsible for Rajapaksa’s downfall are gathering around President Sirisena. In addition to them, a section of those who supported the President to ascend to power are also acting like stooges.

“It is quite evident that President Sirisena is already undertaking an extremely tough job. The national unity government formed by the President is an artificial phenomenon. There is no life in it. As a result, President Sirisena is compelled to give life-support to the unity government from outside. I am sure the President himself is not too happy with some of the developments within his own government. But, the citizens of the country are getting tired of it by the day.

“President Sirisena, a leader who has earned wide respect in international circles, needs an exceptional secretary such as Bradman Weerakoon who can handle his public image. The President should not speak impulsively, letting all his feelings out. On the other hand, he should speak at the most appropriate occasions. As there is no national election around the corner, the President should now grant leave to the politician living in his soul. He should now awaken the statesman in him and embark on social and political reforms.

“Under the Rajapaksa rule, some prominent personalities ended up being victims of politicization. Two of the finest examples in this regard are Prof. Carlo Fonseka and Vasudeva Nanayakkara. Prof Fonseka, a staunch of ally of the Leftist movement and a intellectual of the highest calibre, became a blind follower of Rajapaksa-ism. Vasudeva Nanayakkara, a humanist and a Leftist politician who had a great understanding of arts and culture, has now aligned himself with a bunch of power-hungry racists and extremists.

“Some sections think Wimal Weerawansa is a fine orator. He is considered a good orator because there is a huge vacuum in the country’s political sphere. A good orator can always enrich the national psyche and uplift the standards of the collective intelligence of the people.

A rabble-rouser and a man who panders to the most primitive chauvinistic sentiments of the people cannot be considered a fine orator.

Weerawansa is a man who exploits race and religion for his own survival,” Wijesuriya said in his hard-hitting speech, sending the government a loud and clear message to understand its priorities. Former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and Deputy Media Minister Karunarathne Paranavithana were also in the audience when Wijesuriya made his speech.

The Convener of the NMSJ also directed his criticism at UNP MP Hirunika Premachandra and Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran for allegedly violating the basic tenets of ‘good governance’.

If you want to interfere with the affairs of my ministry, I will step aside and one of you should take it over and run its affairs

- Mangala

Mangala causes stir

Meanwhile, the Parliamentary group meeting of the ruling coalition last week was heated up by a remark made by Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera over the conduct of some SLFP MPs representing the government. Samaraweera said those who attempted to defeat President Sirisena at the Presidential election had joined the government and they were sabotaging the government’s people-friendly plans.

The SLFP ministers in the government were livid on hearing this comment. They met President Sirisena after the group meeting and requested him to ask Samaraweera to retract his statement.

Informed political sources disclosed that they even threatened to boycott the meetings chaired by the Prime Minister if the Foreign Minister failed to retract the statement. President Sirisena, being the true diplomat that he is, managed to pacify the complainants.

However, when the Cabinet met on Wednesday, it was clear that Samaraweera’s previous remark had left a bitter taste in the mouths of some ministers representing the SLFP. This was all too evident when Samaraweera presented a Cabinet paper seeking to close down the Sri Lankan diplomatic mission in Baghdad, Iraq. The first to protest against the move was Minister Rishard Bathiudeen who claimed such a decision would adversely affect Sri Lanka’s Sri Lanka’s relations with the Muslim countries.

Minister Faizer Mustapha, a national list member representing the SLFP, said the Muslim countries, including Iraq, supported Sri Lanka during the final phase of war. Mahinda Samarasinghe, too, contributed to the debate saying Iraq was one of Sri Lanka’s largest tea importers and it would not be a wise move to close down the mission.

Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Thalatha Atukorale and Rajitha Senaratne also said that the Sri Lankan mission in Iraq should not be closed down.

It was crystal clear that the views expressed by his colleagues irked Samaraweera who was trying hard to convince the Cabinet.

“If you want to interfere with the affairs of my ministry, I will step aside and one of you should take it over and run its affairs. I know how hard it is to find an Ambassador to go to Iraq.

The Embassy had been functioning for several months without an Ambassador. This is the reality!” Samaraweera said, responding strongly to ministers who criticized his Cabinet paper.

As there was no end to this argument, President Sirisena intervened and requested to defer the matter, as there were other Cabinet papers to be discussed.

Eknaligoda tug-of-war

It is common knowledge that there is a tug-of-war between the Army, the Attorney General’s Department and the Criminal investigations Department in the on-going investigation into the disappearance of journalist Prageeth Eknaligoda.

There was a complaint from the investigators that the Army was not cooperating with the investigation.

When the case was taken up on Monday before the Homagama Magistrate, he said tough action could be taken against parties not cooperating with the CID investigation.

Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake made this observation consequent

The camp has not been taken over, but, two cupboards containing documents pertaining to an investigation have been sealed

- Army spokesman

to a complaint by Senior State Counsel (SSC) Dileepa Peiris who appeared on behalf of the Attorney General.

SSC Peiris submitted to Court that the Army had not fully cooperated with the investigations into the incident and thereby the prosecutors were yet to receive vital administrative material pertaining to the investigations.

The SSC said the prosecutors were trying to get at this material since September 2015 and further informed Court that the documents sought had nothing to do with national security or national intelligence issues but army administrative ones.

He informed Court that the investigations were now stagnant due to the failure of the Army to submit these documents in Courts.

However, the legal officer who represented the Army told Court that they were cooperating with the investigations and informed Court that the Army submitted vital material last Saturday.

The Magistrate observed that if the Army did not cooperate with the investigation in contravention to the Court order, the responsible parties could be dealt with under Section 185 of the Penal Code for disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant.

However, the state counsel moved Court that an order be re-issued on the Army Commander in person to submit a report in court in this regard on the next hearing date.

Meanwhile, in another interesting development, the counsel for the fourth suspect, a member of the Army Intelligence unit, requested permission of the Court to file an affidavit that the CID had pressurised the wife of his client to make a statement before the Magistrate.

However, the prosecutors objected to the move and informed Court that the detectives involved in the investigation were facing risks and their relatives have been warned that they be withdrawn from the ongoing investigations.

“They want to tarnish the detectives’ image and discourage them from conducting investigations,” the Senior State Counsel representing the AG’s department said.The SSC also added the suspects had been detained on the orders of the Defence Ministry Secretary and all of them had been well treated in police custody and there was no need to pressurize the wife of a suspect to make a statement.

Taking into consideration the facts, Court refused to accept the affidavit as a production item in the case.

A day after the hearing of the case, several print media institutions reported that the Girithale Army camp, the last known destination of journalist Prageeth Eknaligoda, had been sealed.

The reports further said that the camp had been placed under the Military Police on the directive of the Army Commanders.

Nearly 12 hours after these news reports, Army Spokesman Brigadier Jayanath Jayaweera , convened a press conference in Colombo and cleared the air on the matter. The spokesman said the Army Camp has not been taken over.

“The camp has not been taken over, but, two cupboards containing documents pertaining to an investigation have been sealed,” he clarified. Jayaweera said it was only a part of the standard procedure in the Army. He added that no change has been made to any of the camp’s functions.

He added that a group of Army officers had gone there to find some documents pertaining to an investigation and those cupboards had been locked by the officers conducting the investigation.