Before Mahinda Rajapaksa was sworn in as the new Prime Minister on Friday evening, did President Maithripala Sirisena sack Ranil Wickremesinghe from the Prime Ministerial post or did the latter cease to hold office following the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) withdrew from the national Government the same evening?
Two versions come from those who endorse the last week’s so-called regime change.
President Sirisena, citing an Article in the Constitution informed Mr Wickremesinghe on Friday night that he had removed the latter from the post. The Chairman of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna and the legal advisor of the Mahinda Rajapaksa group Professor G.L. Peiris also seems to be of the opinion that Wickremesinghe was sacked.
But he always quotes a part of a different Article of the Constitution which says “On the Prime Minister ceasing to hold office by death, resignation or otherwise…” and argues that the word “otherwise” includes the expulsion of the Prime Minister by the President, despite no provision in the Constitution directly vests power in the President to remove the Prime Minister. No doubt, this is just an interpretation of one side of the debate.
On the other hand, the top aides of Mr Rajapaksa, such as Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila explain the regime change as an inevitable outcome of the withdrawal of the UPFA from the National Government.
They argue that the National Government had been formed by way of the UNP, the party which had obtained the highest number of seats in the Parliament having formed a coalition with the UPFA faction led by the President, and once the UPFA withdrew from the coalition, the National Government ceased to exist.
And they point out another Article of the Constitution which says “The Prime Minister shall continue to hold office throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers continues to function…” to say that Wickremesinghe ceased to hold office once the UPFA withdrew from the national government.
These diverse versions on what happened on the eve of Rajapaksa having been sworn in are an indication that the group endorses the regime change finds grounds to justify the change after it was put into effect.
The ordinary people are utterly confused on the legality and the propriety of what the President has done, in spite of the Constitution becoming a subject matter to be debated in every household these days.
Hundreds of legal interpretations are being put forward every minute on the matter, but pathetically not a single version seems to be independent. Every “expert” has some sort of link to the parties of the two leaders who are laying claim to the premiership. Sometimes interpretations are based on personal grudges.
Ridiculously some “experts” interpret the Constitution in one way in the evening but only to switch camp the next morning and unabashedly give a diametrically different interpretation.
Ethics and morality have no place in the current debate. (In fact, it has been so in most of the cases in Sri Lanka) Those who wholeheartedly supported Wickremesinghe when he, with only 47 seats in the Parliament, was sworn in as Prime Minister by President Sirisena on January 9, 2015 question now the morality and the legality of the appointment of Rajapaksa, who had the support of only 95 MPs as Prime Minister by the same President.
Since some might find it hard to digest our point we would put it on the other way round as well.
Those who justify the appointment of Rajapaksa as Prime Minister without the necessary votes in the Parliament today questioned the propriety of appointment of Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister in 2015.
On both occasions those who endorsed the President’s move to appoint a Prime Minister without the required Parliamentary majority hid behind an Article in the Constitution which says “The President shall appoint as Prime Minister the member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of the Parliament.”
Yes, for argument sake, he was correct on both occasions. But the whole world knew that even “in the President’s opinion” Wickremesinghe in January 2015 and Rajapaksa, at the time of his appointment were not “most likely to command the confidence of the Parliament.”
During the address to his nation on Sunday, the President admitted that he appointed Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister in January 2015, when the latter commanded the confidence of only 47 out of 225 members of the Parliament. Hence, he admits that he violated the Constitution.
Likewise, it is clear that the President prorogued the Parliament in order for Rajapaksa to muster sufficient support to prove that he commands the confidence of the Parliament.
"Hundreds of legal interpretations are being put forward every minute on the matter
It is a well-known fact that only about 100 MPs, including the four UNP defectors, had set to support Rajapaksa by last Wednesday"
It is a well-known fact that only about 100 MPs, including the four UNP defectors, had set to support Rajapaksa by last Wednesday. The President would be exposed to have violated the Constitution for the second time if Rajapaksa failed to show his majority power in the Parliament once it meets.
Nevertheless, the current scenario is not so surprising, as it is a result of the gradual mounting of conflicts between the President and his coalition partner, the UNP. The conflict came to the surface in the form of President’s displeasure over the UNP ministers’ handling of corruption cases against the former regime. It must be recalled that President Sirisena in an unexpected turn of events in October 2016 launched a scathing attack on the Bribery Commission, CID and FCID, claiming that the three institutions had been politicized. Later he and Minister Rajitha Senaratne justified his controversial statement by saying that the three institutions were very slow in looking into the high profile corruption committed by the leaders of the former regime.
The President again in July last year accused the UNP of delaying and even stalling investigations against the leaders of the previous Government. During a Cabinet meeting, he had reportedly challenged to catch the thieves within three months if the police and the Attorney General’s Department were brought under him. He had told the UNP leaders that it wouldn’t be a problem for the UNP if Rajapaksa made a comeback. And ironically the situation has come to a head now with the President himself teaming up with the same leaders of the previous regime.
UNP leaders have been questioning since last Friday one of the President’s famous comments that he would have been six feet under the ground had he been defeated at the last Presidential election. The only answer with which the President can counter their argument is the allegation of a coup to assassinate him and former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, as claimed by Namal Kumara. He could say that going six feet under the ground was not an immediate threat, whereas the coup was already knocking on the door.
In spite of the coup theory having helped the Rajapaksa’s comeback; and also the purported conspirators having targeted his brother as well, interestingly his group seems to be totally indifferent about it, as the UNP leaders had been. If Rajapaksa proved his majority in the Parliament and the allegation of the purported coup is disproved under the new government what would be the situation of the President?
The civil society organizations that helped the President to come to power in 2015 lament that he had betrayed the mandate he received from the people in 2015 by bringing back the regime that he himself called corrupt and dictatorial. True, but it is the so-called Yahapalana regime that betrayed that mandate first by allowing to happen, if not conniving with the Central Bank Bond scam, the largest single financial fraud in Sri Lanka’s history, as the President had put it in his address to the nation.
Yet, needless to say, people achieved something, in term of democracy during the so-called Yahapalana Government. Not a single state-sponsored abduction was reported during this period and the Right to Information Act had been used even by the Rajapaksa loyalists. Minorities were not in fear. But, the fate of UNP and thereby that of the government seems to have been intrinsic. The UNP which introduced the executive presidency to the country has failed to realize the powers of an executive president. Thus, the same thing happened under President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s tenure as well, in 2004.
Most important matter to be concerned with all these arguments and bickering is that this is just a dogfight among power-hungry politicians and no interests of the people are involved in it.
