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
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Thursday, December 6, 2018
The constitutional crisis and need for general election
By DR. W. D. RODRIGO-December 5, 2018, 8:54 pm

President’s Counsel, Former Principal of Sri Lanka Law College,
President of the ‘Association of Professionals for Sri Lanka’.
The present constitutional crisis in Sri Lanka that originated with the
dissolution of Parliament by the President on 9th November 2018 has
aroused unprecedented interest of the people. This is a good omen as the
Constitution imposes a fundamental duty on every Sri Lankan to uphold
and defend the Constitution and the law.
Several fundamental rights applications had been filed in the Supreme Court on 12th of November 2018 seeking inter alia-
a. To quash the orders contained in the Extraordinary Gazette
notification bearing number 2096/70 dated Friday 09th November, 2018
which dissolved the Parliament; and
b. Interim relief including a Stay Order against the Respondents from acting in terms of the said Extraordinary Gazette.
After hearing the petitioners, the intervenient petitioners, and the
Attorney General, the Supreme Court granted leave to proceed to the
Petitioners in all the said fundamental rights applications and issued
interim orders operative until 7th December 2018 staying the operation
of gazette extraordinary No. 2096/70 dated 9th Nov 2018. The Court also
issued an interim order restraining the Respondents and or their
servants, subordinates and agents from acting in terms of the said
gazette. This second interim order is also operative only until 7th
December 2018.
It is important to remember that the interim order of the Supreme Court
is only a stay order and not an order quashing the said gazette.
Therefore, until such Extraordinary Gazette is nullified/quashed or
declared null and void, the said proclamation stands valid. However, the
continuation of the proceedings of Parliament in disregard of the stay
order undermines the authority and the legal effect of the stay order
made by the Supreme Court. In Sri Lanka sovereignty is in the People and
is inalienable. Nevertheless, as a representative democracy the
exercise of the legislative, executive and judicial power which comprise
three of the main components of the People’s sovereignty have been
entrusted to the three organs of government.
The three organs of government, namely, the legislature, the executive
and the judiciary, must exercise the powers entrusted to them in trust
for the People. In the event of any doubt it is the duty of the organ of
government concerned to seek a clarification and/or opinion from the
Supreme Court, which has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to
interpret the Constitution. The failure on the part of the authorities
to do so in the present context amounts to a serious breach of the
People’s trust reposed on them and undermining of the People’s
sovereignty. This may also have serious consequences. Since this may
have adverse effects on the legitimacy of parliamentary proceedings
conducted between the date of the interim stay order (13th November
2018) and date of the final decision of the Supreme Court, the true
meaning of a stay order must be examined in the light of authorities. In
Billimoria vs. Minister of Lands and Land Development & Mahaweli
Development reported in 1978-79-80 1 Sri Lanka Law Reports 10 the
Supreme Court held that:
"A stay order is an interim order and not one which finally decides the case."
In the same case Neville Samarakoon C. J. held at page 15 that:
"The interests of justice required that a stay order be made as an
interim measure. It would not be correct to judge such orders in the
same strict manner as a final order. Interim orders by their very nature
must depend a great deal on a judge’s opinion as to the necessity for
interim action"
Neville Samarakoon C. J.’s view may be substantiated with the decision
of the Supreme Court of India in B.P.L. Ltd. And Others vs. R. Sudhakar
And Others 2004 Supp (2) SCR 414, where the Court has distinguished
between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order in the
following words at Page 5:
"While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation
of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between
quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an
order results in restoration of the position as it stood on the date of
passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an
order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the
order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of
passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has
been wiped out from existence."
It appears that the rationale behind his Lordship Neville Samarakoon C.
J.’s dictum in the above mentioned case is the necessity to ensure that
the final order of the Court would not be rendered nugatory by the
conduct and acts of the parties and their servants, subordinates and
agents between the time of the interim order and final order.
As the Parliament has been dissolved by proclamation, the interim order
staying the operation of the same cannot have the effect of
re-summoning/re-convening of the Parliament, which continues to stand
dissolved until the nullification or quashing of the said proclamation.
The true legal effect of the said interim orders is to stay the
operation of gazette extraordinary No. 2096/70 dated 9th Nov 2018 and to
restrain the Respondents and their servants, subordinates and agents
from acting in terms of the said gazette until 7th December 2018.
Consequently neither the President nor the Elections Commissioner can
act in disregard of the said interim order of the Supreme Court.
Serious disagreement has sprung between the Legislature and the
Executive President as the Parliament continued to meet and conduct its
business. These disagreements have caused a political instability in the
country. The political instability has distracted foreign investors and
investors in the share market. Inability to attract foreign investors
and the fall of the share market has had an adverse effect on the
national economy of the country, with an adverse effect on every aspect
of community life. The Rupee depreciates and the Dollar appreciates to
unprecedented levels. This situation has caused serious problems of
inflation, unemployment, underemployment and cost of living. More than
anything else, people have lost faith and confidence in the Constitution
and the democratic system of government.
The failure to give effect to the stay order of the Supreme Court has
resulted in the Parliament not being properly constituted. This
situation has an adverse impact on the basic structure of the
Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka relating
to the sovereignty of the People, particularly the legislative
sovereignty of the People as declared in Articles 3 and 4 (a) of the
Constitution.
In the circumstances the rights of the People of Sri Lanka to exercise
the legislative sovereignty through a validly constituted Parliament
would be violated contravening Articles 3 and 4 (a) of the Constitution.
This would deprive the People of Sri Lanka of their right to equal
protection of the law guaranteed by Article 12 (1) of the Constitution.
In the circumstances the fundamental rights of the citizens of Sri Lanka
to equal protection of the law guaranteed by Article 12 (1) have been
violated and will continue to be violated.
In Faiz vs. Attorney General and Others reported in [1995] 1 Sri L. R. 372 Perera J. stated at 404:
"It is clear that Article 126(4) gives this Court very wide powers in
this regard. I am of the view that responsibility under Article 126
would extend to any respondent who has no executive status but is proved
to be guilty of impropriety, connivance or any such similar conduct
with the executive in the wrongful acts violative of fundamental
rights".
Judging from the aggressive manner in which Parliamentary proceedings
are conducted it appears that the Parliament is unlikely to be able to
sort out this Constitutional issue within the Parliament. Hence the most
appropriate solution is to seek a fresh mandate at a general election
from the People who have the sovereign power of this country.