Sirsena Caving In?

By N. Logathayalan –NOVEMBER 30, 2018

President Maithripala Sirisena has shown that he is really indistinguishable from his pre-2015 gang of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s. The latter only needed to have waited till 2020 to gain power through elections. But the judicial nooses were tightening round their necks at Courts. Rajapaksa’s family and friends were in real danger of going to prison – and pretty soon too. So they threw caution to the winds and jumped the gun dissolving Parliament unconstitutionally.

They tried to buy government MPs. It did not work. Sirisena claimed in a major speech that MPs were on auction. It turns out that the only cross-overs at that point were to his side, making it quite plain that his side was doing the bribing. One clown has been crossing back and forth and has made a joke of the Tamil community.

The literally crooked gang did not have the required numbers in Parliament. They tried their hooliganism in Parliament but failed to avoid a no-confidence vote. Now they are boycotting Parliament to make excuses as to why they cannot demonstrate the numbers they claim in Parliament.

Worse is to come. Important cases are being heard in the Supreme Court.

The cases are hopeless for Sirsena. His argument for the legality of his dissolving Parliament is essentially this: that Artcle 33 (2)(c) of the Constitution gives him the power to dismiss parliament anytime: “In addition to the powers, duties and functions expressly conferred or imposed on, or assigned to the President by the Constitution or other written law, the President shall have the power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament.”

In contrast, Article 70 says that Parliament can be dissolved only 4 years and six months after its first meeting, or on a motion supported by 2/3 of all members. Neither of these two conditions has been fulfilled.

The President’s case is essentially that Section 33(2)(c) may be read in isolation, and he can ignore section 70. However, there is enough case law that says that different sections must be interpreted in manner that the whole is harmonious. Yet in his gazette proclamation dissolving parliament, Sirisena draws from Section 70(1), the only place in the constitution that speaks of dissolution of parliament by proclamation and which he claims to ignore.   Section 70, he says, does not apply in interpreting Section 33. Moreover in that special gazette proclaiming the dissolution of parliament (No. 2094/45 of 27 Oct.) he invokes the powers conferred on him by article 70(5) – reminding one of wanting to have the cake and eat it at the same time. Moreover, that article confers no power on anyone and only speaks of the dates he has to set for elections. He has proclaimed claiming powers not conferred on him by the article he has cited. It shows the quality of legal advisers Sirisena has.

The President’s interpretation in reading Section 33(2)(c) – that is, that he can dissolve parliament any time – means that he can call for elections, and when he does not like the result call for elections again and so on till he gets the results he wants. What s worse is that by his interpretation he can never be impeached – for when Parliament dares to impeach a terrible president like himself, all that the President has to do is dissolve Parliament. That absurdity renders Sirisena’s interpretation totally crazy – what in logic is called reductio ad absurdum, reducing a thesis to the absurd conclusions it leads to, thereby disproving the thesis.

All these arguments will be heard 4, 5 and 6 of December with the inexorable verdict expected on the 7th. I do not need to expand on the many more reasons why the Supreme Court will find the dissolution of Parliament unlawful.

Read More