DailyMirror
Intervenient petitioners say two-thirds majority not enough
A referendum should be held in addition to approval by a two-thirds majority in parliament for the proposed Constitutional amendments to come into force, several petitioners claimed in the Supreme Court yesterday.
The intervening petitioners sought a referendum in addition to the envisaged two-thirds majority vote in parliament for the proposed constitutional amendments, when the amendments were taken up for determination before the five-member Supreme Court bench yesterday.
The special Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Shirani A. Bandaranayake, K. Sripavan, P.A.Ratnayake, S.I.Imam and R.K.Suresh Chandra.
“The proposed Amendments to the Constitution which seek to alter the number of terms limit of the Executive Presidency consist of several amendments which purportedly give unfettered dictatorial power. Hence it should be approved by Majority in Parliament and get the people’s assent by a referendum,” President’s Counsel Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne appearing for two intervenient petitioners,
Attorney-at-law Lal Wijenayake and Chandra Jayaratne, submitted, when the proposed Bill, presented to Court as an urgent Bill, was taken up for its determination.
Dr. Wickramaratne, submitting a list of countries that give their presidents powers to rule more than two terms, stated that Sri Lanka would be categorised with countries like Zimbabwe, Uganda, Vietnam, Cuba and Azerbaijan.
“This is an attempt to subvert the democracy of the country,” said Dr. Wickremaratne.
Seven intervening petitioners (including the Democratic National Alliance, the JVP and the Centre for Policy Alternatives) made objections to the proposed 18th Amendment, and requested that a referendum be held before it is passed.
J. C. Weliamuna, who appeared for the JVP, said that the proposed amendment was a serious error. Referring to an attempt by former president J. R. Jayewardene to appoint a person, who was not elected, to parliament, Counsel Weliamuna said that it was stopped when the Supreme Court directed the president to hold a referendum.
Counsel Saliya Peiris, who appeared for ‘Ravaya’ journalist K. Janaranjana, said that this Amendment would remove the checks and balances and take away the powers of the Constitutional Council. For example, if the state media were misused and manipulated for the benefit of the ruling parties in run up to the election, the Commissioner of Elections would not be able to appoint a Competent Authority, he said.
However, Attorney General Mohan Peiris, making his submission in support of the said Bill, argued that the proposed amendments would enhance the franchise of the people.
The Attorney General submitted that the removal of restrictions on the number of times a person may be elected Executive President was an enhancement of the franchise of the people as they would have a wider choice before them.
He also submitted the new amendments stipulated that the president should present himself in parliament once in three months and that that would make him answerable.
He said the president should be answerable to parliament; and the amendments made him answerable to the people.
He stated that, instead of the Constitution Council, the present amendments provided for a consultative mechanism by establishing a Legislative Council composed of members of parliament only.
He said the purpose of the Legislative Council was to make observations which would be conveyed by the Speaker to the president within one week — and the president would take the final decision.
He said the power of the president was inalienable and there would not be an abdication of power, and it was in stark contrast to the present regime.
He said the appointment of the Inspector General of Police would be taken out of this process and police officers would be brought into public ambit as public officers.
He said the appointments, promotions, transfers, disciplinary actions and dismissals would be carried out by the Public Services Commission, while the National Police Commission would only receive complaints from the public.
He said the amendment in respect of the Elections Commission sought to ensure that the Deputy Commissioner of Elections could act in place of the Commissioner if the need arose.
The proposed amendment would protect the Elections Commissioner against transfer during the period of elections and, as to the complaints into disregarding of the guidelines for the media, the Elections Commissioner could make any order without fear.
Summing up, he contended that the amendments were to be passed by a broad majority of parliament and a referendum was not required.
Dr Jayampathi Wickramaratne raised question as to whether it was an ordinary Bill or an urgent Bill and brought to the notice of the court that copies of the Draft Bill were not available to them though it was an important Bill. Consequent on the complaint, Court directed that copies be given to the Intervenient petitioners too.
Dr. Wickramaratne said that the 1978 Constitution placed certain limited controls on the Executive President and that sovereignty of the people was inalienable and that it was exercised through the President who was elected by them.
He saidthat the concentration of power in one person led to abuse of power and that, in 1972, former prime minister Dudley Senanayake opposed a proposal to have an for Executive President.
He named several authoritarian regimes – namely, Uganda, Kenya, Croatia, Singapore, Syria, Vietnam, Yemen and Belarus, Peru, Surinam and Uruguay — which allowed unlimited number of terms for Executive Presidents. Some also had one party systems.
.In Singapore, out of 94 members of parliament, 82 were ruling party members, 9 were appointed members and only three were from the opposition party, he said.
He contended that there should be checks and balances to curb abuse of power, but that in the proposed system it was impossible to impeach the president. He said the president had the power to dissolve parliament with impunity.
He pointed out that the 1970 Constitution had at least two kinds of limits and safeguards to prevent abuse of power. He said the proposed amendments made manipulation possible.
He said that the 17th Amendment strengthened the people’s sovereignty and there were certain restrictions on the powers of the President. The proposed amendments would nullify the restrictions and the people would lose their sovereignty, he said.
He said that it was an attempt to subvert the democratic process and said the people should decide through a referendum.
J.C.Weliamuna contended that the proposed amendments would reduce the constitutional freedoms and safeguards and that the President could breach the Privileges of Parliament.
Saliya Peiris said that power should be in the hands of the people and that extending the number of terms of the president would interfere with the independence of the judiciary.
Viran Corea, Prof. Rohan Edrisinghe and Chrismal Warunasuriya also made submissions.Attorney-at-law Lal Wijenayake and Chandra Jayaratne, submitted, when the proposed Bill, presented to Court as an urgent Bill, was taken up for its determination.
Dr. Wickramaratne, submitting a list of countries that give their presidents powers to rule more than two terms, stated that Sri Lanka would be categorised with countries like Zimbabwe, Uganda, Vietnam, Cuba and Azerbaijan.
“This is an attempt to subvert the democracy of the country,” said Dr. Wickremaratne.
Seven intervening petitioners (including the Democratic National Alliance, the JVP and the Centre for Policy Alternatives) made objections to the proposed 18th Amendment, and requested that a referendum be held before it is passed.
J. C. Weliamuna, who appeared for the JVP, said that the proposed amendment was a serious error. Referring to an attempt by former president J. R. Jayewardene to appoint a person, who was not elected, to parliament, Counsel Weliamuna said that it was stopped when the Supreme Court directed the president to hold a referendum.
Counsel Saliya Peiris, who appeared for ‘Ravaya’ journalist K. Janaranjana, said that this Amendment would remove the checks and balances and take away the powers of the Constitutional Council. For example, if the state media were misused and manipulated for the benefit of the ruling parties in a run up to the election, the Commissioner of Elections would not be able to appoint a Competent Authority, he said.
However, Attorney General Mohan Peiris, making his submission in support of the said Bill, argued that the proposed amendments would enhance the franchise of the people.
The Attorney General submitted that the removal of restrictions on the number of times a person may be elected Executive President was an enhancement of the franchise of the people as they would have a wider choice before them.
He also submitted the new amendments stipulated that the president should present himself in parliament once in three months and that that would make him answerable.
He said the president should be answerable to parliament; and the amendments made him answerable to the people.
He stated that, instead of the Constitution Council, the present amendments provided for a consultative mechanism by establishing a Legislative Council composed of members of parliament only.
He said the purpose of the Legislative Council was to make observations which would be conveyed by the Speaker to the president within one week — and the president would take the final decision.
He said the power of the president was inalienable and there would not be an abdication of power, and it was in stark contrast to the present regime.
He said the appointment of the Inspector General of Police would be taken out of this process and police officers would be brought into public ambit as public officers.
He said the appointments, promotions, transfers, disciplinary actions and dismissals would be carried out by the Public Services Commission, while the National Police Commission would only receive complaints from the public.
He said the amendment in respect of the Elections Commission sought to ensure that the Deputy Commissioner of Elections could act in place of the Commissioner if the need arose.
The proposed amendment would protect the Elections Commissioner against transfer during the period of elections and, as to the complaints into disregarding of the guidelines for the media, the Elections Commissioner could make any order without fear.
Summing up, he contended that the amendments were to be passed by a broad majority in parliament and a referendum was not required.