UNP stands its ground

UNP MP Lakshman Kiriella

• Calls crisis a ‘tug of war’, pledges not to back down 
• Says no one can question decisions by legislature once certified by Speaker
• Warns Govt. servants of personal repercussions if orders followed 
• Says SL should follow British P’ment tradition, appointing majority leader as PM  

Building on its unrelenting stand, the United National Party (UNP) yesterday maintained that it would continue the battle to establish a legal Government, led by UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe. 

Parliamentarian Lakshman Kiriella, referring to the situation as a tug-of-war, said his camp is not ready to let go, but was willing to face elections at any time under a legally established Government. 

“This is like a tug-of-war, we are now pulling from one side, and they are pulling from the other, we will not let go. We want a legal Government and we have no issue working under a legal administration, we have no issue going for an election in such a context. But this is not a legal Government,” he said, speaking at a news briefing held in Temple Trees. 

Noting that his party “brought the President” into power in 2015, he said that President Maithripala Sirisena should have raised any problems he had with Wickremesinghe with the party members. 

“He should have told us if he had an issue with Ranil Wickremesinghe, we are the ones who brought him to power, and to give him an alternative,” Kiriella said, noting that the current political crisis in the country was created by the actions of President Maithripala Sirisena.

Denying the existence of a legal Government in the country at present, Kiriella also warned on personal repercussions to Government servants who follow instructions given by members of the Sirisena-Rajapaksa camp.

“Those Secretaries who are now following the directions of these illegal Ministers, there will be personal impact on Secretaries and Government officials, they will have to pay damages personally, there have been judgements that have been given to that effect,” he said. 

Citing judgements and articles of law, the politician claimed that those who follow instructions will be personally answerable, as there is no recognised Cabinet or Prime Minister following the No Confidence Motions passed in Parliament last week. 

“When a No Confidence Motion has been brought in and is approved in Parliament, the Cabinet has been dissolved. When the No Confidence Motion has been passed, then the Prime Minister and the Cabinet ceases to function; when that happens, appointments of the Ministry Secretaries also cease to function.”

The senior politician said that this is according to Article 52 (3) which reads as: “The Secretary to a Ministry shall cease to hold office upon the dissolution of the Cabinet of Ministers under the provisions of the Constitution or upon a determination by the President under Article 44 or Article 45 which results in such Ministry ceasing to exist.” 

Applying the Article to the current context, Kiriella claimed that Secretaries to the Ministries now have no right to work in their official capacity. 

Kiriella also sought to clarify that, despite what has been said by their opponents, when the Speaker of the Parliament declares a motion passed as per standing orders, “not even the Supreme Court or the President can question” the decision. 

Further, he insisted that the President does not have an option of appointing anyone he pleases as the Prime Minister, as there are legal provisions governing the selection, noting that in the event the Sri Lankan Constitution is silent on issues, the House is bound to follow the British Parliamentary tradition. 

“According to the Powers and Privileges act, Article 7 of the Act notes that if our Constitution is silent on any matter, then we are bound to follow the British Parliamentary tradition,” he noted. 

Article 7, which reads: “Parliament and the Members thereof shall hold, enjoy and exercise, in addition to the privileges, immunities and powers conferred by this Act, such and the like immunities as are for the time being held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof.”

Kiriella noted that according to the British Parliamentary convention, only the person who has the majority should be named the Prime Minister. 

“That is the law,” he noted, adding that those who have given legal advice to the President has neglected to refer to this act.