The proposed 21st amendment to the constitution would reduce the powers of the president and give them to the prime minister and parliament, but neither Ranil Wickremesinghe nor the current parliament is suitable to use such powers says the Leader of the JVP Anura Dissanayake.
He was speaking at a media briefing held at the JVP head office today (27th). Member of the Central Committee of the JVP Dr Nalinda Jayatissa was also present.
Speaking further JVP leader Anura Dissanayake said, “The 21st Amendment to the Constitution was presented to the Cabinet recently. At present, the amendment has been given to the political parties. We see two instances where good amendments have been made to the Constitution of our country. One is the 17th Amendment. However, after the Rajapaksa regime came to power in 2010, the 17th amendment was completely abolished and the 18th amendment was brought. The 19th Amendment was then adopted as a step in the direction of democracy, taking advantage of the special political situation that arose in 2015. However, Gotabaya and the Mahinda Rajapaksa family used the power they were given at the last general election to remove the 19th Amendment and pass the 20th Amendment in Parliament.
It is ironic in history that the same group that raised its hand to repeal the 19th Amendment and then shouted in Parliament that 20 is needed instead of 19 is preparing to repeal it and bring in the 21st Amendment. Also, there are those in this Parliament who raised their hands for the 17th, the 18th, and the 19th and then raised their hands for the 20th against the 19th. There are those who have raised their hands four times before the 21st is presented to this Cabinet. Nimal Siripala and Susil Premajayantha are two such examples.
There have been constitutional amendments that change each clause for each instance of power gambling. However, the 21st Amendment is now before us. As a political movement, we believe that this constitution, which has been torn apart at various times and has been patched up several times, should be completely changed and a completely new constitution brought to our country. But we know that these rulers are not going to bring in a new constitution. When the 20th Amendment was passed in Parliament, the Minister of Justice and the President announced that a new constitution would be introduced within a year. It is clear to us that these rulers are not trying to pass a new constitution, just like a camel would never pass through the eye of a needle.
Accordingly, if the existing constitution is amended in the direction of strengthening democracy, we will support it. But it should not be an amendment that turns out to be a mere hoax. Even when the 19th Amendment was introduced, instead of thinking about democratic principles, the power interests of Maithripala Sirisena’s centre of power and Ranil Wickremesinghe’s centre of power were embedded in that 19th amendment. Therefore, instead of bringing in amendments to strengthen democracy, there was a distortion because power interests went ahead.
Even now, with the introduction of the 21st Amendment, the need to consolidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s power is clear. Therefore, our proposal is that the President should not be able to hold any ministerial post as it was in the 19th Amendment. However, the 21st Amendment has not created such an obstacle for the President. He has the power to take over and hold ministerial posts. About a month ago the President was in charge of all the ministries in the country. The President on several occasions removed ministers and took over their powers. We emphasize that the President should not have the opportunity to take over any ministerial post. Only then can it be assumed that some amendment was included in the executive presidency.
Also, the transfer of MPs from one party to another has created a great deal of confusion. There is a history of switching parties for positions and privileges, to save cases, to save crimes, and to strengthen bank accounts. Some MPs jump here and there at every crucial moment in Parliament. As such, Parliament does not become a reflection of the true opinion of the people.
The original text of the 19th Amendment had created obstacles to this. The original had the ability to remove a Member of Parliament by a speedy course of action if he was transferred to another party. However, after Wijedasa Rajapaksa accepted an amendment brought by Dinesh Gunawardena after it was presented to Parliament, that important amendment was withdrawn from the 19th Amendment. We, therefore, emphasize that provisions should be included in this amendment to prevent MPs from shifting sides.
The President has been given the power to pardon. He can release those sentenced to death and those imprisoned for life. Case decisions may be suspended. Only part of a judgment can be enforced. The President has been given discretionary power over court decisions. In the past, this power has been used to set free rapists and women who have committed murder and sentenced to death.
Prisoners sentenced for murder were released. There were allegations that a large bribe was exchanged for political reasons as well as to get those responsible for the Royal Park massacre. Therefore, we suggest that the power to grant this freedom should be subject to certain restrictions. Our lawyers are considering what restrictions should be imposed in this regard. The 21st Amendment should limit the President’s discretionary power to pardon.
The next point is the issue of dual citizenship. Currently, the 21st Amendment stipulates that the president and ministers cannot hold dual citizenship when running for office. Former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran is a dual citizen. The Governor of the Central Bank who had the greatest power over the financial control of our country was a dual citizen. Eventually, he became involved in a major central bank fraud and fled to his home country. Therefore, we propose that the appointment of persons to important institutions in the country should include a proposal that does not give dual citizens the opportunity.
Next, there should be a major discussion on whether MPs’ assets should be audited. Our position is that accuracy cannot be selected by audit alone. Also, the Audit Department does not have full powers to do so. Therefore, after the MPs and the people’s representatives have given a declaration of assets and liabilities, an inquiry can be conducted only on the basis of those declarations of assets and liabilities. We suggest that clauses should be included to request the public to provide information to these investigative agencies if they have information on property that has been misappropriated by public representatives and to authorize investigative agencies to conduct a full investigation based on that.
Also, the amendment of the powers of the executive presidency will give significant powers to the Prime Minister, Parliament, the Cabinet and the Constituent Assemblies elected by Parliament. In short, the powers vested in the President are vested in various structures. An important point here is to delegate powers to the Prime Minister and Parliament. The current Prime Minister is a person who has lost his seat in the parliamentary elections. He was a rejected man from the country who had barely slipped in from the national list. This amendment to the Constitution gives special powers to the Prime Minister. In terms of democracy, Ranil Wickremesinghe is not qualified to hold the post of Prime Minister with such special powers. For, he is a Prime Minister who was rejected by the people. He does not have the right to assume responsibility as the Prime Minister with the additional powers vested in him through the 21st Amendment. Therefore, we propose to include a time limit on the current Parliament as an interim provision in this constitutional amendment. The term of this Parliament should be shortened by including an interim provision in this amendment.
Our proposal is to limit the term of this Ninth Parliament to two to three years. After that, the people will have the opportunity to elect members of Parliament and a Prime Minister through a new parliamentary election. Such a Parliament and a Prime Minister should be empowered by the 21st Amendment. Otherwise, a ‘set up’ Prime Minister has no right to exercise the powers vested in him by the 21st Amendment. Therefore, as the most important amendment in this Constitution, we propose that these amendments should come into force after the election of a Parliament and a Prime Minister by a new mandate, including interim provisions limiting the term of the present Parliament.
Another important aspect is the appointment of Secretaries to Ministries. Recently the secretaries of the ministries were transferred and appointed at will. It was said that an administrative service officer was appointed to the ninth post under this government. When the President has been in office only for two and a half years, a secretary was transferred to nine places. The same is true of heads of institutions. If fraud and corruption are not allowed according to the political requirements, they will be transferred. When a very wrong agricultural policy was brought in, the Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture was abruptly transferred due to his opposition to it. In this situation, there is a proposal that the Secretaries to the Ministries should be appointed by the Constitutional Council. We hope to submit a number of such proposals to the 21st Amendment. Based on these proposals, we are discussing other proposals. We plan to present all our proposals regarding the 21st Amendment.”
Responding to the media:
• The Prime Minister has invited us to discuss the 21st Amendment at 4.00 pm today. We have no palace conspiracies with the Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice has given us the draft of the 21st Amendment. We also have been requested to send proposals in writing for this. Those written proposals have been requested today. But we received this draft on the evening of the 25th. Because of this, we will need about two more days. We hope to submit our proposals in writing to the Minister of Justice. Also, when the draft is passed, it must first be gazetted. It should be presented in Parliament. Then it should come to the Consultative Committee of Parliament. After that, it should come to the Consultative Committee of the Ministry of Justice. At such times we look forward to presenting our suggestions and ideas. It has to come to Parliament to get passed. We hope to present our amendments to Parliamentary Committees. We don’t believe that negotiations inside palaces would bear any fruit.
• Don’t these Ministries, this President, this Parliament get advice? They get tons of advice. Do these people need new advice not to steal? Do these people need new advice not to break the rules? Should new advice be given not to waste public wealth? This is not a problem that can be solved by consulting services.
The people oppose the members of this Parliament. All these Members of Parliament have been elected by the people of the country. Power is in the hands of the people who call for a new parliament. That is why the people of our country should be given an opportunity for a new mandate. Then the new government can get ready to get new advice for each field. But this Parliament cannot solve problems through advisory services. These problems can only be solved by establishing a government with a strong, new economic and political agenda.
No matter how many misconceptions we have about the President, even if he himself proves that he is not fit for the chair, he has a constitutional and 20th Amendment right to hold that position. But the 21st Amendment gives the Prime Minister some of the powers of the President. This Prime Minister and any Member of Parliament who is appointed as the Prime Minister from this Parliament is not qualified to obtain those new powers. A special situation arises. As the Prime Minister has new powers in Parliament, the people must be given the opportunity to elect a new Parliament and a new Prime Minister to exercise that new power. Parliament and the Prime Minister are elected by the people with the understanding that they wield the relevant power. It is not justifiable for a person who could not even get elected to Parliament now to get more powers through the 21st Amendment. Since the 21st Amendment gives new powers to Parliament and the Prime Minister, a new Parliament must be elected to exercise those powers. The term of office of this Parliament should be limited by including an interim resolution in the 21st Amendment that would be specific to this Parliament only.
• Ranil Wickremesinghe had said that a new budget should be brought. It was also said that the credit limit should be increased. It has been said that some tax amendments should be brought. Once those amendments have been listed and submitted for a period of time and passed, other actions can be taken. If a legal amendment is necessary to resolve the current economic crisis, we can consider it and offer our support.
• Not that there was no one to give the post of Prime Minister. There were enough people in line to pick it up. But Gotabaya gives from the queue to whomever he wants. It is given to someone who is not a threat to the Rajapaksa family and becomes a permanent protector. Sajith Premadasa’s practice is like writing love letters after the bride gets on the Poruwa with another partner. It doesn’t work. S.J.B. is formed with the basic foundations of the United National Party. Sajith may be saying that he is ready to take positions to protect that base.
