President Maithripala Sirisena on Thursday finally broke his silence on the subject of dissolution of parliament, indicating that it would take place after the anticipated passage of the 19th Amendment Bill, which is to be debated in Parliament on April 20 and 21. At an event in Polonnaruwa he remarked that the prevailing confusion in [...]

Columns

19A: The good, the bad and the unknown

View(s):

President Maithripala Sirisena on Thursday finally broke his silence on the subject of dissolution of parliament, indicating that it would take place after the anticipated passage of the 19th Amendment Bill, which is to be debated in Parliament on April 20 and 21. At an event in Polonnaruwa he remarked that the prevailing confusion in the political arena would be resolved with the general election. He gave no time frame. There is still some uncertainty amongst the citizenry over the final form that the reforms will take.
According to the Speaker’s announcement, the Supreme Court has said the Bill was constitutional, it had to be passed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, and that certain sections needed to be approved by the people at a referendum. Those sections relate to the Prime Minister being designated as ‘Head of Cabinet’ and his powers to appoint ministers, assign their subjects and functions etc.

Procedural lapse
The Bill that was gazetted on March 16 was not the version presented to Parliament on March 24, and which presumably went to the SC. We are told that a further 12 pages of amendments were later submitted by the Attorney General to the SC during the hearing. Nineteen petitions were heard on the earlier version but the public had no opportunity to contest the latter amendments as they had no idea what was in them. Even MPs have been complaining that they are unaware of details of the final version. This would seem to be a serious procedural lapse on the part of the Government in introducing these important reforms.

At the time the Bill was presented in Parliament, JHU Minister Champika Ranawaka told media the amended text had, in describing the role of the President, dropped the words that said he was ‘Head of Government.’ But briefing reporters on the status of the 19A on Friday Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Ajith Perera denied this in response to a question. So it would appear that there is no change in Article 30 of the Constitution which says the President is “Head of the State, the Head of the Executive and of the Government and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.” The Deputy Minister also denied Ranawaka’s earlier claim that the Bill required the President to “always act on the advice of the Prime Minister.” Perera was optimistic that once the sections requiring a referendum were dropped, the amendments would produce a good balance because the President and Prime Minister would have to agree with each other in making decisions. He said if there was disagreement between them the matter would be decided on by Parliament. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has informed the House that the items requiring a referendum in terms of the SC’s determination will be removed at the Committee stage. He said that ‘this would nullify the need to get public opinion,’ according to Friday’s ‘Daily FT.’ This comment would seem to disregard the public’s right to know, debate and if necessary challenge the contents of an important Bill before it becomes law. As former External Affairs Minister G L Peiris has pointed out, once the 19A is enacted it, cannot be challenged.

Dissolution of parliament
Though it was only on Thursday that the President finally broke his silence on the question of dissolution of Parliament, threats to do so were periodically issued by Wickremesinghe and various UNP spokespersons. They generally came when there was any sign of non-cooperation from the ranks of the UPFA (for example when they threatened to bring a ‘No Confidence’ motion against Public Security Minister John Amaratunge, and more recently by Akila Viraj Kaiyawasam and Lakshman Kiriella in connection with passage of the 19A).

This has been a somewhat amusing sideshow going on in the UNP, since everybody knows that the PM does not have the power to dissolve parliament under the present Constitution. That power lies with the President. The UNP’s constant refrain about dissolving Parliament probably had more to do with a coded message to parliamentarians that their pensions could be on the line if they became too troublesome. An MP is entitled to a pension after completing five years in parliament, and early dissolution (i.e. before 23 April 2015) would mean loss of pension benefits to those who entered the 14th Parliament which began on 22 April 2010. Since the majority of MPs belong to the UPFA, the Opposition would have been the ‘worst hit’ by such a move.

Independent Commissions
A point overlooked in the matter of establishing the Independent Commissions has been highlighted by Liberal Party Leader and MP Rajiva Wijesinghe, who says the 19A still retains two ‘dangerous’ provisions from the past. The first is that Ministry Secretaries shall be appointed by the President, and the second is that all Ministry Secretaries vacate office when a new government is formed. Based on the principle that public servants serve the public and not the Executive, Wijesinghe has proposed a further amendment to the Constitution. This Private Member’s Bill, already gazetted as the ’24th Amendment to the Constitution,’ would require that Secretaries to Ministries be appointed by the Public Service Commission and not by the President. It deletes the clause that says a Ministry Secretary shall cease to hold office upon the dissolution of the cabinet.

Not so united
The Government faced an unexpected setback last week when the Opposition defeated its bid to raise an extra Rs 400 billion in Treasury Bills. The two sides have since been trading accusations, with the Government blaming the Opposition for going back on a promise to support the Bill, while the SLFP accuses the Government of double standards – of having told them it needed to raise money to pay public sector salaries and then denying it in parliament.

In spite of strenuous efforts by the Government to win the SLFP over with cabinet posts along with the attendant perks and benefits, the party is acting feisty and ‘oppositional.’ The defeat over the T-Bill vote would seem to show that the so-called ‘National Unity Government’ is not exactly united.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Post Comment

Advertising Rates

Please contact the advertising office on 011 - 2479521 for the advertising rates.