SC verdict and elections

By Jayatilleke de Silva

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the dissolution of Parliament by the President was a violation of the Constitution. It was powerful and unequivocal decision arrived unanimously by the seven-Judge bench presided over by the Chief Justice. It also said that the Parliament cannot be dissolved before four-and-a-half years of its term has expired unless Parliament decides by a two-thirds majority to do so. 

This decision is an indictment on the President and a confirmation of the supremacy of the fundamental law of the land. It not only demonstrated the independence of the Judiciary but also underlined the vitality of democracy. 

The decision is all the more important for it ended the impasse that began on 26 October with the President appointing a new prime minister outside Parliament. It will, however, take some time for normalcy to return for the mess that was created in the public service and statutory bodies has to be cleared

The SC verdict also quashed the pseudo-legal treatises that legal luminaries including learned President’s Counsels, professors and all-knowing pundits in the political arena expounded via the media for the last several weeks.

It also established that the removal of the Prime Minister on 26 October was a conspiracy and not a desperate patriotic attempt to “save the nation” as its authors alleged. (The free legal dictionary defines conspiracy as “an agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors”.)

 The President boasted of having several trumps in his hand. If after using all trumps his position was not vindicated by the SC could anyone be blamed for considering him an ignoramus instead of a ‘Master Player’? 

Despite the “patriotic” and “democratic” rhetoric what lay underneath was a struggle for power driven by personal ambitions. Each protagonist pretended to be the saint and allocated the role of villain to the opponent.

Those that took up the position that the dissolution of Parliament was legal began to interpret the SC judgement to suit their own interests. They claim that the SC determined against holding of elections. It is a diabolical lie spread with malicious intentions. Far from deciding against elections it definitively stated how elections should be held. It held that dissolution of Parliament before the expiry of four-and-a-half years of its term is legitimate if it passes a resolution with a two-thirds majority calling for its dissolution. Thus, the SC underlined the legality or constitutionality of holding an election. Therefore, what it ruled out was the holding of any unconstitutional election, the type of which the SLPP and the SLFP are demanding.

It is quite clear that pointing out how an election could be held is different from negating an election. The SLPP-SLFP interpretation of the SC verdict is a case of the devil quoting scriptures to serve its own purposes.

The SC verdict has once again demonstrated the undemocratic authoritarian nature of the executive presidency. A single act of the Executive President virtually brought the country to a standstill and caused damage to the economy and the prestige of the country. Hence its abolition has become an imperative necessity. The case for a new democratic modern constitution, equity, justice and human rights for all was never so urgent as today.

However, a new constitution cannot be introduced in a hurry. Though a beginning has been made by Parliament during the last three-and-a-half years, the composition of the present Parliament does not indicate the possibility of the job being completed within the remaining period of its term. Therefore, the best course of action would be to ask the people at the very next national election (Presidential or General) for a mandate to frame a new constitution and place it before the people for their approval within a stipulated timeframe, e.g., within a year.

 There is no reason for alarm that evil will befall the land since any constitution will have to be placed before the people for their approval and it will be sovereign people who decide its fate and not the NGOs or foreign powers as alleged by some persons.

In the meantime, Parliament could again take up the 20th Amendment proposed by the JVP as an urgent business. Its approval by Parliament would ensure the abolition of the executive presidency and close an avenue for dictators to emerge constitutionally. It will also preclude the emergence of dual centres of governance and save millions of rupees wasted on periodic presidential elections. 

(The writer can be reached via [email protected])