No-Confidence Motions Galore

BY FAIZER SHAHEID-2017-08-23

The era of good governance has met many road bumps and potholes in its journey since becoming the driving force of Sri Lankan politics, but what it really lacked all along was a good driver to manoeuvre it through the rough terrains. For a long time coming, the people believed in the idea of good governance and were angered by the lack of it. After a plethora of opportunities being wasted, and now that the Government appears to be exposed, the politics at play is evident and they appear to be drowning in a sea of 'No-Confidence' motions.

Contrasting politics has been played all along. The politicians know to play to the tunes of the people's desires during election time, and by now, many have figured how and when a politician would bring out his bag of tricks. The problem is in the people. It is the people that fail to distinguish politics from government in a democratic structure. Politics would surround the art of attaining Government by convincing the people to grant them power, but Government is where the people are actually ruled.

Politicians tend to showcase a certain charismatic persona when addressing the people. They employ various tactics depending on the audience. For example, Hirunika Premachandra used her father's murder to activate sympathy and sentiment from among the people, while the United National Party (UNP) as a whole, repeatedly drove the idea of being liberated from corruption and debt.

Background

Since March 2016, when the Ministry of Megapolis and Western Development was first faced with a No-Confidence motion in Parliament, the Government has been swimming in a sea of No Confidence motions. The motion against the minister did not proceed.

Not too long after that, the then Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake was faced with a 'No-Confidence' motion and ever since, there has been a significant rise in the seriousness of No-Confidence motions. The motion was defeated comprehensively with an overwhelming majority of 145 to 51. At the time, the Joint Opposition had claimed that there was never an intention of defeating the Government, but to expose the Government for its wrongdoings.

Following the bond scam allegations, Ravi Karunanayake took the brunt of it on behalf of his party and resigned before a 'No-Confidence' motion was taken up in Parliament. In fact a 'No confidence' motion with the signatures of 34 Parliamentarians was presented in Parliament, where even members of the Cabinet threatened to sign the contract should Karunanayake remain as Minister.

Soon after, Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe took on the heat, after making statements opposing the Hambantota Port deal. This time, the action was brought by Dr. Rajapakshe's own party members, on an allegation that he had violated the collective responsibility of the Cabinet.

Collective responsibility is a Parliamentary convention that once the Cabinet has made a decision in respect of a particular matter, all members of that Cabinet must publically support such a decision irrespective of whether they like it or not. The Hambantota port deal with China was one of the more infamous decisions of the Government where plenty of criticism was levelled against the Government.

The Government had however pushed the decision further, considering that the harbour was a loss making entity.

There was even more criticism from the Government against Dr. Rajapakshe for the way he operated. There were claims that

Dr. Rajapakshe was preventing any action being filed against Mahinda Rajapaksa and family in a Court of Law, and that Dr. Rajapakshe was to be the Presidential Candidate of the Joint Opposition should Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa be prevented from contesting the elections. The Working Committee of the UNP took him to task on the first matter and he was given time, until 17 August, to respond to the allegations. However, the latter allegation was a baseless one that has not been propounded by either of the factions.

However, despite the charges levelled against him, Dr. Rajapakhe refused to step down from his portfolio.

Follow up

With Dr. Rajapakshe refusing to abide by his party's demand for his resignation, a major cloud appears to have loomed above the heads of the UNP members. When Dr. Rajapakshe was asked to show cause as to why he was intentionally delaying the institution of any legal action against the Rajapaksas,

Dr. Rajapakshe lashed out that he was not about to interfere with the judicial functions.

However, the problem was that the allegations were not communicated formally to the Working Committee of the UNP. Therefore, when Sujeeva Senasinghe questioned whether Dr. Rajapakshe had abided by the show cause notice issued by the Working Committee, it was pointed out that he had not. The Working Committee had thereby resolved to remove Dr. Rajapakshe from his Cabinet portfolio if he did not step down.

His refusal to step down on Monday (21) appeared as an open confrontation with his party men, and as a result, the Prime Minister had reportedly requested President Maithripala Sirisena to remove the Justice Minister from his ministerial portfolio.

There also does not appear to be any sign of a No-Confidence motion expected to be taken up any time soon.

In the meantime, UNP Parliamentarian Chaminda Wijesiri said that he was preparing another No-Confidence motion to be filed against the Minister of Provincial Councils and Local Government for purposefully delaying the Local Government elections and the Provincial Council elections. Despite his statements, it appears that the 20th Amendment to the Constitution and the move to amend the Local Authorities (Amendment) Bill was proposed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. It appears unlikely to be taken seriously in Parliament.

Procedure of No-Confidence Motions

While the frequency of introducing No-Confidence motions appears to be getting increasingly frequent, very few understand the impact of such a motion. A No-Confidence motion is a motion filed in Parliament where, if passed, it is proven that a particular Parliamentarian, in an official capacity, is no longer fit to hold a particular office. There are times when such a No-Confidence motion can also be filed against the entire Government.

Nonetheless, unlike in many other countries, a No-Confidence motion has no particular form or procedure prescribed in law. The general procedure of filing a motion in Parliament, as prescribed in the Standing Orders of Parliament, are followed.

The procedure of a No-Confidence motion has long operated as a convention in the Sri Lankan Parliament. Therefore, it is a petition calling for the resignation of a particular holder of office, on a particular ground. It is usually signed by several Parliamentarians at the beginning when being handed over to the office. Thereafter, the Government shall mull over whether or not the matter must be taken up in Parliament, and the Speaker shall ultimately decide whether to proceed for debate. Upon conclusion of the debate, Parliament may go for a vote, where it would be determined whether such a person, against whom the motion has been levelled, must be removed. There is no compulsion that such a No-Confidence motion must be adhered to, which means that it has no valid legal basis to be bound by.

There is only political authority in respect of a No-Confidence motion, and should a person not resign or be removed after such a motion has been passed, it is deemed that a Parliamentary Convention has been breached. There will be abundant criticism from the people too, and support for the Government is likely to turn in the opposite direction.

Constitution on No-Confidence motion

Although the law contains next to nothing on No-Confidence motions and its effect on Parliamentary activity, a certain provision was included through the Nineteenth Amendment that makes a No-Confidence motion a very powerful tool. The provision is found in Article 48 (2) of the Constitution, which reads:

'If Parliament rejects the Statement of Government Policy or the Appropriation Bill or passes a vote of no-confidence in the Government, the Cabinet of Ministers shall stand dissolved, and the President shall, unless he has, in the exercise of his powers under Article 70, dissolved Parliament, appoint a Prime Minister, Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers, Ministers who are not members of the Cabinet of Ministers and Deputy Ministers in terms of Articles 42, 43, 44 and 45'.

In the above provision, it is stated that if a No-Confidence motion is passed against the Government, that such Government shall stand dissolved. However, the phrase 'in the Government' is in need of interpretation. The word 'in' can be interpreted as not necessarily meaning the whole of the Government. It can include part of the Government too, or an individual in the Government.

The word 'in' may refer to the aspect of being within the Government, or that an ultra vires action by a unit of Government is a representation of the entire Government. In other words, a vote of No-Confidence against an individual in Government is a vote of No-Confidence against the entire Government. If the Court determines the same or similar interpretation of a No-Confidence motion, it would mean that, should a No -Confidence motion be filed against Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe and succeed, the entire Cabinet may have to be replaced including the Prime Minister. Perhaps this the reason why the UNP mounted pressure on Ravi Karunanayake to resign before taking up a No Confidence motion. Perhaps this is the reason why the present Government is too reluctant to take on No-Confidence motions against it.

As the Constitution is considered the most supreme legal document in the country, the Government shall be bound by how the Supreme Court interprets it. If the Supreme Court determines the Constitutional recognition of a Government as being absent after a No-Confidence motion has been passed, the Government will be operating against the mandate of the people.

Conclusion

At present, the Government appears to be fishing in waters that it probably does not quite understand. There are innumerable fallacies that are being spread, and the politics at play are seemingly distracting the people well enough from the duties of the Government. Perhaps it is a ploy to shelve other issues, such as the bond scandal investigation, or other corruption allegations against the Government. Or perhaps it is to distract the people from filing legal action in Courts against the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution or the Local Authorities (Amendment) Bill, where there are resultantly further delays to Local Government polls.

Regardless of circumstances, the Government has deviated from its duty of good governance and rule of law and is focussing more on saving itself. If any No-Confidence motion is passed, the Government may have to endure the deep wrath of the Opposition which is awaiting its opportunity.

The cracks within the Government are becoming increasingly evident, and as the agreement between the UNP and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) draws to an end, it can be surmised that crossover season shall begin fairly early and may not mean glad tidings for the self-proclaimed good governance Government.