Sunday Politics

SLFP decision-making bodies lose control over members:

Forty MPs at Kirulapone rally

Sri Lanka’s long-drawn battle for the right to information reached a decisive point last week, with the Supreme Court giving its ruling on the RTI to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya.

The ruling was signed by Chief Justice K. Sripavan, Judges Anil Goooneratne and Nalin Perera. The bill was placed on the order paper of Parliament on May 16 and four petitioners had challenged the constitutionality of the Bill by four separate petitions.

On Tuesday, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, after reading out the Speaker’s announcements told the House that he had been informed by the Supreme Court that Section 5(1) A of the Bill was inconsistent with Sections 3,4,12 (1) and 14 (a) 1 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court decided that Sections 9(2) A, 19, 43 (a) and 43 (o) of the Bill were inconsistent with Sections 3,4, 12(1), 14, and 55 of the Constitution.

The Speaker also announced that due to these reasons, a two-thirds majority was needed to pass the Bill in its present form. Speaker Jayasuriya announced, however, that the Supreme Court had permitted the passing of the Bill with a simple majority of the House if the Sections inconsistent with the constitution would be amended in a manner to remove the inconsistencies.

The Sunday Observer is in possession of the 20-page ruling presented to the Speaker earlier last week and it explained in detail as to how the five Sections were not consistent with the Constitution.

“Clause 5 (1) (I)

Mahinda Rajapaksa at the Kirulapona rally

This clause denies the right of access to information only if the disclosure of such information would amount to Contempt of Court. However, Article 14A (2) restrict the right to information for the purposes of maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary as well. Failure to include this restriction violates Articles, 3,4, 12 (1) and 14A (2) of the Constitution.

Clause 9 (2)(a)

This clause empowers the Minister to make available updated information to a member of public upon a written request. This clause violates Articles 3,4, 12 (1) and 14 of the Constitution as the right of access to Information is given to a ‘citizen’ and not to a member of the public.

Clauses 19 and 20

The petitioners challenged the two clauses on the basis that they are not in keeping with the provisions of the Constitution, in that the members, officers and other employees cannot be deemed to be public officers and they are not appointed by the Public Service Commission.

The Learned Deputy Solicitor General said the above provision would be amended to accord with the standard provisions found in several Acts such as the Commissions of Inquiry Act, No. 17 of 1948 (Section 9), The Commission to investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act No. 19 of 1994 (Section 18 (1)) and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996 (Section 23). The provisions of the respective Acts are set out below:

Section 9 of the Commission appointed under this Act shall, so long as they are acting as such Members, be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of the Penal Code, and every inquiry under this Act shall be deemed to be judicial proceeding within the meaning of that Code.

Section 18 (1) of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act

‘The Members of the Commission, the Director General and Officers and Servants, appointed to assist the Commission shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of the Penal Code, and every investigation conducted under this Act shall be deemed to be judicial proceeding within the meaning of that Code.’

Section 23 of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act

‘The Members of the Commission and the Officers and Servants appointed to assist the Commission shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of the Penal Code, and every injury or investigation conducted under this Act, shall be deemed to be judicial proceeding within the meaning of that Code.

Thus, the words ‘public officers’ appearing in Clause 19 be substituted with the words ‘public servants’.

Clauses 19 and 20 of the Bill are identical to Clauses included in many enactments to ensure inter alia the following:

(a) That the functions of the officers of the institution are not obstructed;

(b) That the officers of the institution do not conceal a design to commit an offence which should be prevented;

(c) That persons participating in any proceedings before the body do not commit perjury; and

(d) To ensure that there are adequate safeguards against bribery and corruption, Clause 20 provides for the application of Bribery Act to the Commission.

These clauses do not convert the proceeding into judicial proceedings nor do they make the officers administering the proceedings, Judicial Officers. The very fact that the proceedings are deemed to be ‘judicial proceedings’ for the purpose of a specific enactment, implies that they are not judicial proceedings.

Clause 19 in its present form violates Articles 3, 4, 12 (1) and 55 of the Constitution.

Clause 43

This clause defines a ‘Public Authority’ as in paragraphs (i) and (k) in the following manner:

(i) Higher education institutions including private universities and professional institutions;

(k) Private educational institutions including institutions offering vocational or technical education.

In terms of clause 3, every citizen shall have a right of access to information which is possession, custody or control of a ‘public authority’. Article 14A(1) refers to the institutions from whom information could be obtained. The information could be obtained only from those institutions or persons referred in Articles 14(1)(a), 14(1)(b), 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(d).

The institutions referred to in Articles 14(1)(a), 14(1)(b), 14(1)(c) are either controlled by the State or Stage agencies. The persons referred to in Article 14(1)(d) are persons who are in possession of any information from the institutions controlled by the State.

Private educational institutions or private universities are not caught up within the ambit of institutions which are partly or wholly controlled by the State. Hence, these two definitions violate Articles 3, 4 and 14A of the Constitution.

The definition of the term ‘public funds’ is superfluous as the term ‘public funds’ is not used in the Bill. The learned Deputy Solicitor General and Weliamuna agreed that the said definition should be deleted from the Bill.”

Minor changes

The Supreme Court’s opinion did not come as a disappointment to lawmakers who worked labouriously to finalise the RTI Bill. They were aware that the Supreme Court’s ruling had only suggested minor changes to the RTI and would not hamper the attempt to strengthen the citizens’ right to information.

Addressing the weekly Cabinet briefing at the Government Information Department on Wednesday, Deputy Media Minister Karunaratne Paranvithana said the government would accept the changes suggested by the Supreme Court.

“After our first submission of the Bill to Parliament, civil society groups petitioned the Supreme Court. The Speaker in turn informed us of the Supreme Court verdict. The Supreme Court had focused its attention on certain paragraphs. They are mostly technical changes and if we make these changes, we can pass the Bill by a simple majority instead of a special majority,” Paranavithana said.

He added, “We had our technical team to look into it and they said these amendments would only further strengthen the Bill and not weaken it. So we decided to accept them”.

The Deputy Minister said the Working Committee on the Bill would soon convene to decide on the next best date to resubmit the amended Bill to Parliament.

Meanwhile, informed government sources told the Sunday Observer that the necessary amendments to the Bill would be made during its Committee Stage debate.

President’s visit to London

After the new government came to power in January, last year, it interacted with various global partners to fast track the country’s battle against bribery and corruption. Many political analysts have opined that President Maithripala Sirisena’s visit to London next week will be an important step in this entire process.

President Sirisena will leave for London on May 11 to attend an Anti Corruption Summit organised by the British government. British Prime Minister David Cameron extended an invitation to President Sirisena to attend the event when the two leaders met at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting held in Malta last year.

The anti-corruption summit in London will bring together world leaders, business and civil society to agree a package of practical steps to:

* Expose corruption so there is nowhere to hide
* Punish the perpetrators and support those affected by corruption
* Drive out the culture of corruption wherever it exists

One of the key outcomes of the anti-corruption summit will be the setting up of an international anti-corruption body to help law enforcement agencies and investigators track down money laundering and tax evasion.

The new international agency, according to Sir Eric Pickles, Cameron’s anti-corruption adviser, is likely to involve broadening the remit of the Paris-based OECD, which is already undertaking work on bribery and international tax rules.While this body would not have law enforcement powers of its own, it would act as an information exchange for governments committed to fighting corruption.

Cameron, facing claims that Britain has not done enough to clear corruption in UK-administered tax havens, hopes the body will be a permanent institutional legacy of the summit, alongside a series of other commitments that countries attending the summit can adopt.

Pickles told the media that sports bodies including Fifa and Uefa would also sign a joint statement pledging to fight corruption in sport.

He said the statement would commit them to fighting bribery, gambling and drugs in an acknowledgement that the global integrity of sport was under question as never before. It will be the first time international sports bodies have come together to make such a statement.

It is also likely that the summit will endorse greater transparency in public procurement, citing initiatives in Eastern Europe, Colombia and Mexico.

Apart from Sri Lanka, Cameron has invited all 20 member states within the G20, including Russia, Brazil and South Africa – three countries mired in corruption allegations. Russia will be represented by its Deputy Foreign Minister, Oleg Syromolotov, while the US will be represented by its secretary of state, John Kerry.

The summit communique is also likely to include a commitment to make public contracting open by default so that businesses and citizens could follow a clear record of how public money was spent.

It will be the first time that governments across the world have clearly laid out a vision of accessible usable data across the entire chain of public contracting. Total government spending through contracting is estimated at $9.5tn (£6.5tn) worldwide.

It is also important to examine how President Sirisena’s involvement in the setting up of the global anti-corruption body would support investigations carried out by the Sri Lankan authorities.

Undisclosed wealth

It was widely reported in the recent past that certain top members of the previous regime had used various ‘overseas channels’ to hide their undisclosed wealth. In this context, a comprehensive international collaboration of this nature will open new avenues for Sri Lankan law enforcement authorities conducting investigations.

“It must be stated very clearly that the President will not focus on individual cases during his visit to London. He will have discussions with world leaders to form the global framework to fight bribery and corruption. Sri Lanka will certainly be benefited from a robust global framework and it will, in return, strengthen our local bodies probing into bribery and corruption,” an authoritative source close to the President told the Sunday Observer.

Post-May Day politics

The power struggle within the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) has reached a whole new level after the UPFA rebel group’s May Day rally at Kirulapona. It has now compelled the SLFP decision-making bodies to take swift and drastic action to restore unity and discipline in the party.

The UPFA rebel group, or, ‘Joint Opposition’ as they call themselves, from the beginning, planned their May Day rally as a propaganda stunt. The Lalith Athulathmudali stadium at Kirulapona was chosen as the venue as it offered them many additional advantages.

For instance, aerial photographs showed that the rally was jam-packed and all adjacent roads were blocked. Such photographs were widely shared on Facebook and other social media platforms by ardent Rajapaksa supporters. However, this doesn’t underestimate the crowd drawn to the Kirulapone rally. According to various eyewitness accounts, nearly 30,000 people attended the Joint Opposition’s May Day event. It is also important to understand that this only amounted to one-third of the crowd attracted by the UNP rally at Campbell Park.

The UPFA members present at the Kirulapone rally were Wimalaweera Dissanayake (Digamadulla), Sriyani Wijewickrema (Digamadulla), S. M. Chandrasena (Anuradhapura), Shehan Semasinghe (Anuradhapura), H. A. Muthukumarana (Anuradhapura), Weerakumara Dissanayake (Anuradhapura), Kumara Welgama (Kalutara), Rohitha Abeygunawardena (Kalutara), Vidura Wickremanayake (Kalutara), Piyal Nishantha (Kalutara), Jayantha Samaraweera (Kalutara), Kanaka Herath (Kegalle), Tharaka Balasuriya (Kegalle), Johnston Fernando (Kurunegala), Dinesh Gunawardena (Colombo), Bandula Gunawardena (Colombo), Gamini Lokuge (Colombo), Wimal Weerawansa (Colombo), Udaya Gammanpila (Colombo), Prasanna Ranatunga (Gampaha), Prasanna Ranaweera (Gampaha), Sisira Jayakody (Gampaha), Indika Anurudda (Gampaha), Ramesh Pathirana (Galle), Mohan Silva (Galle), Geetha Kumarasinghe (Galle), C.B. Ratnayake (Nuwara Eliya), Sanath Nishantha, Roshan Ranasinghe (Polonnaruwa), Sena Vidanagamage (Badulla), Mahindananda Aluthgamage (Kandy), Keheliya Rambukwella (Kandy), Lohan Ratwatte (Kandy), Dilum Amunugama (Kandy) Dallas Alahapperuma (Matara), Chandrasiri Gajadeera (Matara), Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena (Matara) Nishantha Premaratne (Matara), Kanchana Wijesekera (Matara), Janaka Bandara Tennakoon (Matale) Vijitha Berugoda (Moneragala), Pavitra Wanniarachchi (Ratnapura), Ranjith de Zoysa (Ratnapura), Janaka Wakkumbura (Ratnapura), Chamal Rajapaksa (Hambantota), Namal Rajapaksa (Hambantota) and D.V. Chanaka (Hambantota).

Its organisers said 47 MPs representing the UPFA attended the Joint Opposition May Day rally. Nearly 40 of the 47 MPs were members of the SLFP.

Over 260 UPFA Provincial Council members out of 357 and over 2,000 UPFA Local Government members out of 2,500 attended the Kirulapone rally, the organisers said.

On the other hand, the UNP and the SLFP chose bigger and more spacious venues for their May Day rallies. Although the SLFP rally at the Samanala Stadium, Galle outnumbered the Joint Opposition’s rally, it could not be seen clearly as the venue was more spacious.

On the other hand, the SLFP did not have an effective social media arm to take aerial photographs and share them across all their social media platforms.

While the Joint Opposition went to town with their ‘crowd shots’, the SLFP’s social media pages remained dormant.

This highlighted a serious loophole in the propaganda strategy of the SLFP which still relies on mainstream propaganda platforms.

Notable absentee

Among party seniors who attended the May Day rally at Galle were Nimal Siripala de Silva, Anura PriyadarshanaYapa, Duminda Dissanayake, Mahinda Amaraweera, Chandima Weerakkody, Thilanga Sumathipala, A. H. M. Fowzie, John Seneviratne, Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena, Shan Wijayalal de Silva, Piyasena Gamage and Vijith Vijayamuni. Former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, a patron of the SLFP, was the notable absentee of the SLFP’s May Day rally.

In another interesting turn of events, former Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa, Chief Organiser of the Kirulapone May Day rally, did not seem very active on the big day. It was in the grapevine that other leaders of the pro-Rajapaksa group, namely Wimal Weerawansa and Vasudeva Nanayakkara, were dissatisfied with the former minister’s involvement in the group’s May Day campaign.

What perturbed Weerawansa was the former minister’s dubious track record on the anti-corruption front. It did not mean Weerawansa’s track record was clean, but he was worried that Rajapaksa’s reputation would make a debilitating impact on the Joint Opposition’s political campaign.

In his speech at the May Day rally, however, Rajapaksa tried hard to sound as non-controversial as possible. He explicitly said he took part in the May Day rally as a member of the SLFP and he did not intend to divide the party.

“We have a rally in Galle too. Some of our MPs went to the Galle rally. They said they would go to the Galle rally first and then come to Kirulapone.

They must be on the way now,” the former President told the cheering crowd. Despite his promise, however, none of the MPs who took part in the Galle rally attended the Kirulapone event.

Distasteful tactic

“The late Mr. Bandaranaike formed the SLFP to oppose the UNP. Today, the same SLFP has embraced the UNP. The true SLFPer is disappointed today,” Rajapaksa said, trying to woo the grassroots level SLFP supporters.

“But, when I see this crowd, I can predict one outcome. Very soon, we will have to face the repercussions. I’ve already told Namal to make up his mind to go ‘inside’ (the jail). I too will have to end up there! Probably, Basil and Gota will also join.

Wimal should be ready as well,” the former President predicted. This prediction showed that the former President was attempting the play the ‘sympathy card’ against law enforcement authorities probing into the former first family.

After his speech, however, the organisers of the rally resorted to a distasteful tactic by airing a speech made by President Sirisena in 2009, shortly after the end of the Eelam war.

In his speech, President Sirisena, the then General Secretary of the SLFP, praised the former President and the Rajapaksa supporters derived some strange pleasure from this despicable act.

Rajapaksa, the man who led the country for over 10 years, was all smiles when his supporters frantically jeered at the old video clip of President Sirisena.

After the speeches of the May Day rally, the Kirulapona bigwig had an evening party of sorts on the stage. Members of the joint opposition were seen singing and dancing on the stage while cheering frantically for the former President. Hambanthota district Parliamentarian NamalRajapaksa dominated the ‘May Day’ dance floor, along with Kalutara district MP Rohitha Abeygunawsrdena alias Raththaran.

Meanwhile, Rajapaksa made another interesting move to circumvent disciplinary action by the party. Before arriving at the Joint Opposition’s Kirulapone event, he attended another May Day meeting organised by a group named ‘Samurdhi and Agricultural Collective’.

Along with Rajapaksa, a few other SLFP MPs, namely Pavithra Wanniarachchi and Lohan Ratwatte, also attended the meeting. There were many reasons to believe that it was a strategic move to circumvent disciplinary action by the SLFP Central Committee. Rajapaksa is now in a position to say that the Joint Opposition rally was not the only May Day event he attended representing the party.

“Such arguments do not hold any water in the face of disciplinary action,” a senior parliamentarian, who is also a Central Committee member of the party, told the Sunday Observer.

“The former President can say he represented the SLFP at the Kirulapone rally. But, did the SLFP give him approval to represent the party at the Kirulapone rally Therefore, Rajapaksa’s involvement in the Joint Opposition’s May Day event is clearly a violation of party discipline. The same law applies to other SLFP MPs who attended the Kirulapone rally,” the parliamentarian said.

It is interesting to see how the SLFP will cope with the dissidents’ rally at Kirulapone. The party had sent letters to all members, requesting them to attend the May Day rally organised by the SLFP.

The letter, however, did not explicitly inform the party members of the consequences if they failed to attend the SLFP’s May Day rally.

The SLFP, in the recent past, pussy-footed on action against violators of party discipline. When a group of party MPs attended a Joint Opposition rally at Hyde Park defying a Central Committee order, the party did not take disciplinary action fearing it would lead to a split in the party.

This delay, inevitably, made a disastrous impact on the party’s internal discipline. The group supporting Rajapaksa thought the party was making ‘empty threats’ to keep them away from the former President.

The situation soon grew out of proportion and the party’s decision-making bodies gradually lost control over the conduct of its MPs.

As a result of the Kirulapone May Day rally, the SLFP’s Central Committee is expected to call a meeting this week to discuss action to be taken on SLFP members who dodged the May Day rally in Galle.