A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Tuesday, August 28, 2018
7 reasons why power crazy Mahinda cannot be president again - legal experts explain and confirm…

In order to learn of the true position , Lanka e news made inquiries
from several retired Sri Lankan legal experts (legal draftsmen) living
in Britain , America and Sri Lanka (SL), some of whom are those who have
earned international renown. Following are their analyses in a
nutshell…
1. Firstly , before the Mahinda Rajapakse faction
sought the opinion of the supreme court (SC) regarding the presidency in
the 19 th amendment ,the incumbent president Maithripala Sirisena
himself had inquired about it. That is whether the tenure of office of
the president is 6 or 5 years.
The verdict of the SC was , the presidential period is 5 years. In other
words , even the incumbent president is subject to the terms and
conditions of the 19 th amendment..The argument advanced now by the
lawyers of Mahinda Rajapakse ,that the terms and conditions of the 19 th
amendment apply not to the present president but to the future ones ,
and that it starts with the future presidents, if it is true , the
tenure of office of president as per the SC verdict has to be 6 and not 5
years because at the time when the present president was seeking
elections the period was 6 years. Hence it is abundantly clear the terms
and conditions of the 19 th amendment is valid even now , and not only
from the future. That means Mahinda who was president twice cannot field
as presidential candidate again.
2. It is very unfortunate Mahinda and his lawyers have
misunderstood and misinterpreted the 19 th amendment by viewing from a
wrong angle which is based on the disqualifications mentioned in the 19
th amendment that those apply not to the present president in office but
from the next presidential elections.
In order to analyze and elucidate the position, let us assume , at the
last presidential elections it was Ms. Chandrika and not Sirisena who
contested as presidential candidate . According to the constitution at
that time , a president could hold that post any number of terms , and
therefore assuming Chandrika contested as president and won, in such an
event what was amended by the 19 th amendment to stipulate a president
who held the post twice cannot again field as presidential candidate
under the 19 th amendment will not apply to Chandrika who is in power as
it is applicable only from 2020 presidential elections .
However she cannot field as a presidential candidate in 2020 , and can hold office until that time only.
It is being argued the disqualifications in the 19 th amendment do not
apply to the present president , and only from the next presidential
election , for the sole and whole purpose to cling on to some stray
point and eliminate via the constitution itself the obstacles militating
against the present president , and to help him continue.
3. Mahinda and his lawyers are entertaining a
misconception that the disqualifications stipulated in the 19 th
amendment do not apply to the incumbent president based on the notion
that those do not relate to all the presidents who held the post though
that is not the case. It is to be noted the disqualifications in the 19
th amendment apply to everyone else.
A case in point is the court decision on Geetha Kumarasinghe’s dual
citizenship. The supreme court decided that she cannot be an M.P. based
on the 19 th amendment which disqualified her . If the contention of
Mahinda and his lawyers are valid , she ought to be an M.P. still and
will become ineligible only in 2020. But that is not what happened.
4. Another argument of Mahinda and his lawyer lackeys
is even more ridiculous. That is, the contention , by the 19 th
amendment it is not the existing old post of president but a new
presidential post was created. That too is untrue.
If that argument is tenable president Sirisena should take oaths again
under the 19 th amendment . That did not happen because article 49 (1)
(b) makes the position very clear. It states , ‘the individual who held
the post of president before the 19 th amendment was passed shall after
that date abide by the terms and conditions stipulated in the 19 th
amendment’ Therefore the 19 th amendment has not created a ‘new
presidential post’.
5. On the contrary if by the 19 th amendment a new
presidential post is created, the SC will certainly decide without any
doubt a people ‘s referendum shall be held in that regard.( Before the
19 th amendment was passed , application had to be made and permission
of the SC obtained. On such an occasion the SC had not told such a
thing)
6. The ex chief (cheap) justice Sarath N Silva who
advances legal arguments on behalf of Mahinda had this to say : A
constitutional amendment is not an article specifically and must be
considered generally. That is true. The 19 th amendment was brought in
to rectify the flaw that a president can contest the presidential
elections any number of times, and to limit it to 2 terms . If the
argument of Sarath N Silva that it should be considered generally and
not specifically is to be accepted , then Mahinda who was president for
two terms cannot any way contest the election again.
7. When ex deputy speaker Chandima Weerakody said the
19 th amendment was not an amendment but a counter proposal , the legal
draftsmen and experts remarked , those are not legally based arguments
but nonsensical utterances of idiots who do not know the laws and the
language.
In the circumstances if anybody in the opposition is dreaming that he
could make Mahinda the president again , he/ she will be well advised to
wake up to reality and right now get ready to choose a suitable
presidential candidate.
Chandrapradeep.
Translated by Jeff
---------------------------
by (2018-08-27 22:56:44)
by (2018-08-27 22:56:44)