“Yahapalanaya” to continue UNP and UPFA confirm in Parliament

President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe

By Ashwin Hemmathagama – Our Lobby Correspondent

Contracting parties to the agreement which formed the Unity Government, the United National Party (UNP) and the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) informed Parliament that the agreement to form the national Government is valid and operational.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, bringing the curtain down on the speculations on the efforts of forming new Governments and possible crossovers to strengthen the much wanted 113 Parliamentary seats, informed the House yesterday that the UNP’s agreement with the UPFA is solid and active as per the provisions of the Constitution.

“The Unity Government is continued as per an approval received from the House. The motion presented is valid and is not cancelled. I don’t think that a necessity has arisen to revoke it. I propose if the Secretary General read out the motion we passed as per Article 46 (4) of the Constitution. We follow the Article 46 (4). I don’t think the basis of this agreement has changed. What followed was to get an approval for a national Government where both parties have agreed to move forward with an agreement. The motion presented in the Parliament was to increase the number of ministerial portfolios. But there is no requirement to table this agreement between the signatories,” said Wickremesinghe.

Confirming the Prime Minister’s statement, UPFA General Secretary, Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development Minister and Mahaweli Development State Minister Mahinda Amaraweera said: “We have entered into an agreement with the United National Party. It was presented and has received approval from the Parliament. We will uphold the agreement and continue to follow it. The UPFA and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party haven’t exited the agreement yet.”

However, in the absence of an agreement tabled before Parliament when the resolution to increase the ministerial portfolios was passed two years ago, followed by the explicit extension of the respective resolution from last September, Chief Opposition Whip JVP MP Anura Kumara Dissanayake challenged the decisions reached by the Government during the period of the last four months, citing them as unconstitutional. 

“On the 2nd of September 2015, the approval was given for two years. This was reported in the Hansards. But having failed to present a new agreement by 2nd September last year, the initial approval came to an end. It is true that the participants of this agreement took part in the Government but there is no validity with the expiry of the agreement. So, the conduct of the 48 ministers during this period is unconstitutional. You could have extended the agreement immediately after the expiry. The Parliament approved to increase the number of ministers from 30 to 48 and also the state and the deputy minister increased from 40 to 45 for two years,” held Dissanayake.

Trying to ease the growing tension on the request of Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, Secretary General of Parliament Dhammika Dasanayake, citing the resolution passed by the House after having taken a division by name, where on 3 September 2015 143 lawmakers were in favour and 16 against, read out: “Whereas the United National Party which obtained the highest number of seats in Parliament has formed a National Government, Parliament determines in terms of Article 46(4) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka that the number of Ministers in the Cabinet of Ministers shall not exceed 48 and the number of Ministers who are not Cabinet Ministers and the number of Deputy Ministers shall not exceed 45.”

Unable to agree with the resolution passed without an agreement, which was not tabled in Parliament, UPFA Joint Opposition Parliamentary Group Leader Dinesh Gunawardena charged the Government for not disclosing a public document. “The Constitution is not a joke, but it is not the time to joke with the Constitution. On par with Article 46 of the Constitution, we would prefer to see the agreement related to the motion moved on the 3rd September. We seek tabling of the particular agreement, which is important for this House and a document of Parliament. But the other party went public with the intentions to discontinue the agreement, which lapsed in last September,” said Gunawardena.

Joining the debate, Deputy Minister of Power and Renewable Energy Ajith Perera explained to the House that it is not mandatory to table an agreement, but the resolution was limited to the extension of the number of ministerial posts. 

“According to the resolution, which was passed, it is clear that the Cabinet of Ministers shall not exceed 48 and the number of Ministers who are not Cabinet Ministers and the number of Deputy Ministers will not exceed 45. In this motion, no limitation of two years is found mentioned. In the absence of such limitation in writing, it is baseless to prove that the conduct of the Minister during the last four months was unconstitutional. All this time, the debate was about a myth that limited the period of this national Government to two years,” said Perera.

Endorsing the fact that the national Government is operational in the eyes of the law, Provincial Councils and Local Government Minister Faiszer Musthapha said: “If it was prerequisite, the agreement would have been tabled at the time this resolution was passed in the Parliament. The agreement could be either orally or in writing. If the parties to the agreement say that they want to agree to continue, then the particular agreement is operational.” 

“It is only the contracting parties who could come before the Speaker and say if the agreement is non-existent. It is not for the third parties to interpret the agreement before this House and say that it is not operational. Here, both contracting parties have stated that it is operational, and therefore the third-party statements have no consequence, and also the fact that these agreements were not tabled at the time that this resolution was passed, does not make it a mandatory prerequisite that the agreement is tabled,” he added.