Friday Nov 15, 2024
Friday Nov 15, 2024
Friday, 17 April 2015 03:42 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) claims that the proposed 19th Amendment is a constitutional blunder created by Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe and the United National Party. Minister of Power and Energy and JHU bigwig Patali Champika Ranawaka said the sole purpose of the 19th Amendment was to dissolve Parliament without getting it passed. “This was the conspiracy. But ultimately we won. The Supreme Court determination was in favour of us,” added Ranawaka, in an interview with the Daily FT. The Minister stated that his party was against Ranil Wickremesinghe for several reasons. “Yes we do have a problem with Ranil Wickremesinghe. Firstly, he did not give enough time to study these reforms. Secondly, he violated the combined formula reached by all the parties. Thirdly, he presented 19A in a manner that violated the Constitution. This is why we are against Ranil Wickremesinghe.” Following are excerpts:
Q: Why are you against the 19A?
A: We need not get back to the 1972 Constitution. We need not abolish the executive presidency and introduce the executive prime ministership. The document presented by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is the exact 1972 Constitution. According to the ’72 Constitution, the head of the state, head of the executive and the commander-in-chief is the president. The prime minister is the head of the cabinet and head of the government. The president has to act on advice of the prime minister. Then, through the 1978 Constitution, the president became the head of the government and head of the cabinet. The 1972 constitution had a ceremonial presidency where the 1978 Constitution had an executive presidency. The document presented by Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe on 13 March is the exact ’72 Constitution.
There are some serious issues related to Wickremesinghe’s document. Firstly, this is an incomplete document. One of the main pledges we made during the last presidential election was the electoral reforms. Proposed constitutional reforms have three main points – executive presidency, independent commissions and the electoral reforms. Wickremesinghe’s document does not mention a thing about electoral reforms.
Secondly, the ’72 Constitution’s ceremonial president was appointed by the prime minister. But according to the 19A, the president will be elected by the people. The powers of the president who is elected by the people cannot not delegated to the parliament or the prime minister. It is against sovereignty. This is one of the key features in the Constitution and therefore we cannot go against this.
Mandate is another important point. Various people may have promised to abolish the executive presidency within 24 hours and so on. But what is actually written in the manifesto is abolition of unlimited powers of the executive.
Then there is one more point. We cannot get the constitutional reforms through without the support of the SLFP. In order to have two-thirds, we have to get the support of the SLFP. The SLFP has already laid down certain conditions in this regard. This is not a UNP administration. The UNP cannot act according to its own whims and fancies.
On 15 March we agreed upon a compromised formula. According to this formula the president will remain as the head of the country, head of the government, head of the executive and the commander-in-chief, but we pruned eight powers – the ability to appoint ministers, discretion to decide on portfolios for the ministers, dissolving Parliament, immunity, ability to appoint secretaries, ability to contest more than two terms, discretion to issue pardon and appointing judges to the Appeal Court and Supreme Court. These are the proposed eight powers that will be pruned. There is a Cabinet decision to carry out this compromised formula, but they have acted against that decision.
Q: Are you saying even after reaching a compromised formula the UNP made further changes without the consent of others?
A: Yes, exactly. The UNP is doing what it wants. This is why we were compelled to come out and talk about it. The document it gazetted is a confusing one. In one place it says the president is the head of the country and in another place it says the prime minister is the head of the cabinet. Who is the head of the government? This important factor defines everything. They fail to answer this question. Without giving us a clear answer, they are accusing us. One need not be an expert to understand something simple like this.
The Cabinet too agreed that this need to be changed and the president to be the head of the government, but they didn’t do it. They gazetted one and then presented another document to the Supreme Court. This is clear violation of the Constitution. Section 78(1) of the Constitution clearly says any constitutional amendment should be gazetted seven days before it is presented to Parliament so the people of the country will be aware of the changes.
Q: What alterations were made to the gazetted document before it was presented to the Supreme Court?
A: In the gazette, the head of the government is the president and the head of cabinet is the prime minister. The one that was presented to the Supreme Court doesn’t talk about the head of the government but proposes a government headed by the cabinet. We pledged we will not go for a referendum but the amendments were drafted in such way that will lead to a referendum. This was done deliberately.
Q: What are your thoughts about the Supreme Court determination?
A: I would say the Supreme Court determination has resolved this problem to a considerable level. The Supreme Court has agreed that the manner in which prime minister presented this was not acceptable. The Supreme Court has said the prime minister is the head of the cabinet and that it is he who controls the cabinet. This is exactly what we have been saying.
Q: What would be the next step?
A: They have to abide by the Supreme Court decision and get this approved. People in this country need this urgently. We have to get this passed. They cannot go back to the 1972 Constitution. If they want to do that, they have to go for a referendum. No one can say they were unaware of this simple fact. Let me tell you something; the sole purpose behind this was dissolving Parliament without getting this passed. This was the conspiracy they plotted, but ultimately we won. The Supreme Court determination was in favour of us.
Q: Will Parliament be dissolved?
A: No, they cannot do that. The President can dissolve Parliament or it has to be done through a Parliamentary motion. If they manage to get a Parliamentary majority and dissolve, it is a different story. As for President Sirisena, he has a duty to get this passed. He cannot just let this slip like that. He has to include the electoral reforms into this and get it through.
Q: Shouldn’t electoral reforms be brought separately?
A: These are just empty promises. These proposed electoral reforms have been there since 2002. For the last 12 years these reforms were sitting in the Parliamentary Select Committee. The problem is we need to know where we can get the two-thirds majority in Parliament. We need to know where we can avoid a referendum. We cannot get these reforms through cheap gimmicks.
This was exactly what Ranil Wickremesinghe did to the UNP. He made some minor amendments to the UNP Constitution. The party membership hardly knew anything about these amendments so they raised their hands and approved it. He altered some democratic features and obtained the powers to appoint the Working Committee. That Working Committee appoints the leader. This is why the UNP has been unable to change its leadership for the last 20 years.
Q: Is there doubt whether the 19A will be passed at all?
A: No, this needs to get through. Following the Supreme Court determination, there are some more points to finalise and some technicalities to be sorted out. Once we are through these, we must get this passed.
Q: By when do you think it will get passed?
A: This cannot get delayed. Once Parliament meets after the Sinhala New Year holidays, this needs to get through.
Q: Why is the JHU against Ranil Wickremesinghe?
A: Yes, we do have a problem with Ranil Wickremesinghe. Firstly, he did not give enough time to study these reforms. Secondly, he violated the combined formula reached by all the parties. Thirdly, he presented 19A in a manner that violated the Constitution. This is why we are against Ranil Wickremesinghe. The Supreme Court has ruled out these acts of the Prime Minister.
We are thankful to the Supreme Court for this determination. This clearly shows the independence of the Supreme Court. Despite the Attorney General acting in a biased manner, the Supreme Court acted independently.
Q: In a previous interview, Dr. Jayampathy Wickremeratne, a member of the drafting committee, denied some of the allegations that you mention above. Your comments?
A: What did Jayampathi do? They may claim they drafted this but all they did was take word by word from the 1972 Constitution and call it the 19A. This so-called drafting committee was a failure. They were biased and acted according to wishes of a group of people. It was a constitutional blunder. It was nothing but a conspiracy, but ultimately the Supreme Court ended that conspiracy.
Q: Is it true that the JHU is disrupting the work carried out by the Government?
A: These are baseless allegations spread by Wickremesinghe loyalists. It is the JHU that is helping this Government lead through the correct path. When they try to steal from Treasury bonds, we prevented it; do you call it distraction? Wickremesinghe and his henchmen tried to disrupt the nation. We didn’t let that happen that and therefore they are making these rubbish accusations against us.
Q: Is it true that your aim is to be the president in 2020 and this is why you are against the 19A?
A: They are only trying to sling mud at me. People who are unable to answer us logically are coming up with such heinous accusations. I never mentioned anything about becoming the president of this country. These rumours were initiated by Wickremesinghe loyalists. If my aim is to be the president, then I must support the 19A because even a Parliamentarian can act as a president in his absence. However, I am thankful to the people who spread these rumours and for elevating me to such top position.
What did we say in 2005? We never said to abolish executive presidency. In 2010 and 2014 we maintained the same stand. There was no talk of becoming the president in 2020 at that time. In politics, there are lions. Some are in hiding but when the time comes they come out and make significant changes. We are like that. We are not afraid of those liberal NGO henchmen. We didn’t support Maithripala Sirisena based on astrological predictions. The JHU has more sound economic policies than the UNP.
Q: Do you want to be the President of this country?
A: No, I don’t have a special liking to be the president in this country. But if I see a situation where I feel I need to raise my voice, I wouldn’t think twice to act. We are not mere critics like the JVP. We transform our words into actions. I have held three ministries and I was able to deliver more than what was expected of me.
