Constitutional Morass & The ‘Standby” Enigma

By Rusiripala Tennakoon –OCTOBER 3, 2020

Rusiripala Tennakoon

Recently Donald Trump while engaged in a public debate with his rival Joe Biden in the US Presidential race sidetracked a sensitive question put to him stating “stand back and standby”. Matching the rhetoric Trump is famous for, his choice of words well suited to his disavowal of the blame game centered round White Supremacy, a penalty kick he would inevitably incur in the play ahead of him. 

In Sri Lanka, the controversial 20th Amendment has many shafts from different groups aimed at it, however, with no fatal certainty. The “standby” dictum pronounced by President GR looks a similar sidetracking. The indication is ‘no give and take’ come what may! It appears that the government is hell bound towards  a goal best known to it with least regard to the concerns expressed not only by rival political groups but deflecting even their ardent supporters and promulgators. To the independent onlookers this confrontational approach has become a worrying factor as to why things could not have been dealt with more harmoniously causing less friction.

In such a context the constitutional tangle has to be perceived and focused from a different intersection. Many have come forward opposing 20A totally. Elements politically hostile and inimical obviously have to take this approach because they all played a key frontline role to bring the 19A. But the majority of  those MPs now saddled with the responsibility of carrying the 20A through, are the same who supported 19A to annul their own 18A  passed soon after coming into power in 2010. This group is now reduced to a dilemma in extreme puzzle. 

Eighteenth amendment was brought in on 8th September 2010, “to remove the sentence that mentioned the limit of the re-election of the President and to propose the appointment of a parliamentary council that decides the appointment of independent posts like commissioners of election, human rights and Supreme Court Judges”. Ironically, it was a replacement to the 17th amendment, brought in  2001 ‘to make provisions for the Constitutional Council and Independent Commissions’. Several who supported the 18 A in 2010 happen to be the same people who stood up in favor of 17A in 2001.

Seventeenth amendment to the constitution was passed by the parliament during the office of Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake and  President Chandrika Kumaratunga on 3rd October 2001. Several key figures in the current government were in Parliament then.Eighteenth amendment was passed on 8th September 2010 during the Office of President Mahinda Rajapakse and Prime Minister D.M.Jayaratne. Most of the MPs  who were in the parliament when the 17th amendment was passed subsequently supported its replacement with the 18th amendment.

19A was passed in parliament on 28th April 2015 when Maithripala Sirisena was the President and Ranil Wickramasinghe was the Prime Minister. Parliamentary majority however was with the  MPs who were elected to the government of Mahinda Rajapakse. It was passed by MPs present voting for, except one against, one abstention and 10 absentees.The political party composition of the parliament when the 19th amendment was passed was as follows ;

UPFA headed by  Mahinda Rajapaksa             144 seats

UNF headed by   Ranil Wickremesinghe            60

Tamil National Alliance                                         14 

Democratic National Alliance  (JVP)                  07

Total                                                                        225

The 19th amendment could not have been passed without the  support of the UPFA majority headed by Mahinda Rajapakse.

The irony of history is, those who voted for 19A then are now clamoring to abolish it. The purpose of the 19A was to annul the 18th amendment which they brought, replacing the 17th.  When we look at this hotchpotch situation, we see a total aberration of polarizations  and compromising of policies under different leaderships. It is relevant and important to recall a statement made by John Seneviratna MP, on the day of passing the 19th Amendment in parliament. He said that all those who voted for 18A did not do so because they liked it. But when you are in a government you are compelled to stand by the party they represent. He made a long speech and said that the Government surreptitiously included the removal of executive powers of the President bestowed on him by the constitution in the bill undermining the peoples Sovereignty knowing very well that the Supreme Court will not allow such an amendment without a referendum. He also made reference to the highly unpalatable position regarding the representative capacity of a MP under the proportionate voting system that was in existence. He stressed that the system did not augur well to provide any meaningful representative right for the voters. This clearly shows that the Ranil/Sirisena minority government had either wooed the opposition majority to believe that the voting system would be changed in due course or subverted them to surrender under threat of being prosecuted under the pending legal action contemplated against many of them for various alleged wrongdoings during the previous regime.  Why the MPs not sitting with the government should have believed and trusted such a promise is a matter beyond anybody’s apprehension. But all MPs who supported the 19A are now trying to use this to rationalize and justify their stand.

 It is interesting to recall the historical developments of the Country’s constitution. The country received autonomy within the British Commonwealth in 1948 as the Dominion of Ceylon. Ceylon had two constitutions, Donoughmore Constitution and the Solbury Constitution. It is the Solbury Constitution that provided a parliamentary form of government for the first time. Government of Prime Minister S.W.R.D Bandaranaike set up a joint select committee to consider a revision of the constitution on 10th January 1958 but this committee could not conclude the matter due to the dissolution of the parliament in 1959. Even Dudlley Senanayake government that came to power subsequently attempted to bring a new constitution but it was not successful. The only major change in the administration during this period was the abolition of the Upper House, the Senate , in October 1971.

Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s United Front government brought the First Major Constitutional change by promulgating a Republican Constitution for Sri Lanka in 1972. The National State Assembly so created became the Unicameral legislature for the country with a nominal President.

In July 1977, this government was defeated under the leadership of JR Jayewardene who secured a five-sixth majority in the State Assembly. A new Constitution drafted by his government was adopted replacing the 1972 republican constitution on 4th October 1977 transforming the nominal President to an executive President. Prime Minister JR Jayewardene became the Executive President of Sri Lanka, automatically, on 4th February 1978. This constitution provided for amendments by a majority of two thirds in the parliament barring certain fundamental provisions dealing with important aspects which required an approval at a national referendum in addition to the two thirds majority in parliament. This provision remains valid to date.

Between the period starting from 20th November 1978 to 17th December 1988, the constitution of Sri Lanka has undergone sixteen amendments, all during the Presidency of JR Jayewardene. The most significant amendment was the thirteenth for the establishment of Provincial Councils on 14th November 1987.Many of the amendments sought to provide strength to the ruler and facilitate his authoritarian rule. We remember how J.R. resorted to obtain undated letters of resignations from his five sixth MP force while holding the extremely forceful Executive powers denounced by many as highly dictatorial. JR realized that even such an autocratic constitution cannot guarantee the uninterrupted continuation of the power base. That is why he resorted to secure the status by keeping the MPs well under his control. But he failed to realize the possibility of the emergence of a future leader who would attempt to hold onto the Presidency as long as desired. 

Matters contended by those challenging the 20A are very much in the public domain now. The present Government was given a mandate by the people to establish a constitution which would address the elimination of all bad experiences of the past. Rushing to bring an amendment which while eliminating certain bad features already identified to exist, simultaneously resurrecting  some provisions discarded with much public demand has become a bone of contention. This is where the new Government blundered in stirring up a hornet’s nest. When the public sympathy and support committed  to them remained  so fresh why did the government act with such an undue haste paving the way to  huge accusations  such as  attempting  to  exercise  the executive powers without the valve and conduit of the Cabinet? 

Read More