Thoughts on President Sirisena's Shocking Betrayal

Last month, the Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena sadly began degenerating into a greedy

power hungry politician. This noticeably started on the 26th of October 2018 in his shocking move

where he unconstitutionally sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and appointed former

President Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister. This was followed by him proroguing Parliament on

the following day. Two weeks later, he made another unconstitutional move on the 9th of November
where he dissolved Parliament and called for general elections to be held in January. The dissolving

of Parliament has been temporarily suspended by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka whose final

judgement is scheduled to be delivered of the 7th of December. It is very distressing to see the

President brazenly violate the Sri Lankan Constitution and betray everything he stood for. In this

article, I’ll be giving some of my thoughts on the President’s behaviour.

Violating His Own Restrictions

In April 2015, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka was passed in Parliament. The

President was one of the key people responsible for the 19th Amendment. Some features of the 19th

Amendment include the restoration of the two-term limit for Presidents and the removal of the

President’s ability to sack a Prime Minister & to dissolve Parliament until the first four and a half
years of its term. Having done the last two actions, he has violated the very restrictions he was
instrumental in bringing about.

Unethical Conduct  

I think this conduct is very unethical as the President purported to remove the man who helped him

win the Presidency and appointed the very man he contested against. In November 2014, Maithripala

Sirisena who was then the Health Minister in the Mahinda Rajapaksa government, crossed over to

the opposition to be the Common Candidate to campaign against his former boss. Defeating

Mahinda Rajapaksa seemed very difficult then and it was achieved on 8th January 2015. The

President even said in 2015 after former President Rajapaksa got nominations to contest in the 2015

general elections that if the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) won, he wouldn’t appoint Mahinda

Rajapaksa as Prime Minister. What President Sirisena did is a betrayal of his mandate of good

governance, accountability, reconciliation, media freedom among other issues. He was elected to

usher in a new era to Sri Lanka and had the potential to be a good President, but he has sadly

reverted to the lowest level of political indecency.

Since the 26th of October, he has been acting in such a disgraceful way. He has been getting

involved in and supporting a very bad form of governance. Incidents include the forceful taking over of

state media by those loyal to Mahinda Rajapaksa, apparent bribery as United National Party (UNP)

MP Palitha Range Bandara claims that he was offered $2.8 million USD to crossover and the

disrupting of Parliamentary proceedings by many United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) MPs. I

don’t believe the appointments to the role of Prime Minister and the Cabinet by President Sirisena

were constitutional, but even if you put aside the constitutionality of his actions, it’s very distressing to

see his reactions following the no-confidence motions passed against Mahinda Rajapaksa and his

purported government. Firstly, it’s him not accepting the first no-confidence motion. He requested the

first clause stating that the appointments were illegal to be removed which was adhered to resulting

in a second no-confidence motion being passed. He again did not accept the second no-confidence

motion. This is disgusting behaviour to request for something, have it granted and then not do what

you promised.

Party Centric Thinking

An issue I had with President Sirisena was that he had been focusing too much on his party the

SLFP which got into conflict with his mandate and his working relationship with Ranil

Wickremesinghe & the UNP. It is my perception that those actions led to this moment. I wish he
had been an Independent President, that is being a President with no party allegiances. I think this

arrangement would have resulted in him accomplishing more, making more sensible decisions and

not reuniting with Mahinda Rajapaksa.  

The Need to Abolish the Executive Presidency

The President’s actions to me are a reason why the Executive Presidency should be abolished. It

shows that the powers of the Sri Lankan President can easily corrupt those who come in with good

intentions. This is despite the fact that President Sirisena himself was responsible for reducing

presidential powers. In fact, founder of the Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance (CIMOGG),

Attorney-at-Law Elmore Perera who contributed in 2016 to my article “Impact of the 19th Amendment

One Year On” said the thought provoking words in my correspondence with him that I didn’t include

there, “It was widely agreed that 35 years of experience had shown that the Executive Presidency

had contributed immensely to several of the ills that plagued the country.”

The Presidential system enables Governments to be formed where the President and the Prime

Minister are from two different parties. This results in the two leaders getting into conflict with one

another, which happened in the relationship between Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe

despite the fact that they came together on the same platform. I am in favour of a ceremonial

President which Sri Lanka did have from 1972 to 1978. I think that a ceremonial President would not

get into conflict with the Prime Minister, as the President in this situation wouldn’t be a member of a

political party. I further think that an Executive Prime Minister would have less opportunities to abuse

his or her position than an Executive President.

Conclusion

These are very sad and difficult times for Sri Lanka, which is so disturbing as the cause of these

problems comes from the President elected against the type of governance he has been currently

practicing. I am pleased that the actions of Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa seem to be

getting weakened and remain confident that the status quo in Parliament prior to the 26th of October

can be restored. It’s encouraging to see activism against the actions of the President by many Sri

Lankans. This activism gives hope that it can drive our country further once we are out of this mess.

Opportunities for Sri Lanka in 2017 After Recent Disappointments

I’m writing this at the end of 2016 looking at Sri Lankan issues from a political angle. I’ll start by mentioning recent disappointments from my perspective that happened in the last 3 months of 2016. I don’t intend to go into detail discussing or explaining them in this article. These recent disappointments include the President’s controversial speech at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, the recent emergence of racial crimes & hatred, issues regarding the Government & Police’s response to these incidents, the Inspector General of Police being caught on a phone call implying he’s protecting someone under investigation, the possibility of increased fines for traffic violations cancelled due to a strike by private bus companies, a strike at the Hambantota port, the Navy Commander assaulting a journalist at that strike etc.

I think it is important that the Sri Lankan Government resolve the problems arising from these issues. This Government really needs to deliver in 2017 in light of these issues, and as more needs to be done based on what they were voted in for. On the positive side, there are some events set to take place in 2017 that could bring real benefits to Sri Lanka. Firstly, the Cabinet recently approved a yearly event National Integration and Reconciliation Week beginning from the 8th to the 14th of January 2017. This event will be promoting national integration among school children, creating sensitisation and awareness in the media in all three languages, encouraging the private sector to be involved in integration programs, north south dialogue & inter-village exchange programs and a competition to promote national integration.

As expected in January, Sri Lanka will lease Hambantota port to a Chinese firm raising about USD 1.12 billion which should help Sri Lanka pay off the USD 8 billion owed to China for the development projects under the previous regime. I hope that the Chinese firm will be able to make the Hambantota port profitable to bring more benefits than just the money. In June 2016, the Right to Information (RTI) Bill was passed in Parliament. The RTI Act will come into effect on Independence Day, 4th February 2017. It is from that day onward when citizens can file RTI requests, making the Government more open to its citizens.

The Sri Lankan Cabinet passed the Open Government Partnership (OGP) plan in October 2016. The OGP plan gives a 12-commitment national policy plan and sets up a steering committee to monitor its implementation headed by both the President and the Prime Minister. This national policy plan has a schedule until June 2018. Member countries of OGP, in endorsing the OGP Declaration, show a commitment to “foster a global culture of open government that empowers and delivers for citizens, and advances the ideals of open and participatory 21st century government.”

A promise of the 100 day program was a Code of Conduct for Parliamentarians, which still hasn’t been made law. There is some hope as the Code of Conduct was mentioned in the Sri Lankan media recently, and it was tabled and presented in Parliament on the 10th of December. This gives an indication that it will get passed in Parliament in the next 6 months, providing it gets enough votes. Sri Lanka is working on a new constitution right now and it’s possible that the new constitution will get completed or at least make real progress next year. The Megapolis project is in its early stages right now, and I hope to see much progress on it next year.  

So these are some of the opportunities for Sri Lanka based on events set to occur in 2017. I don’t have any idea how 2017 will play out for Sri Lanka, but if the Government is mostly successful in the opportunities I mentioned, as well as in other events, 2017 could be a good year for Sri Lanka, compared to 2016.

Impact of the 19th Amendment One Year On

This post is about the 19th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution which occurred a little over a year ago when it was passed on the 27th of April 2015. Before I mention the 19th Amendment, I will give some background to Sri Lankan Politics of the current decade that relates to it.

In 2010, Sri Lanka’s then President Mahinda Rajapaksa passed the 18th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution which made the President far too powerful and leading Sri Lanka towards dictatorship. The biggest problems of the 18th Amendment were its removal of the two-term limit for Presidents allowing him/her to contest indefinitely and bringing independent commissions under the President. Sri Lanka’s current Government led by President Maithripala Sirisena introduced and passed the 19th Amendment. Its changes include restoring the two-term limit & the power of independent commissions as well as further reducing presidential powers & increasing the power of the Prime Minister.

When Sri Lanka received independence from Britain in 1948, Sri Lanka, then known as Ceylon had a Parliamentary system of Government with the Prime Minister being the Head of Government and the Queen as the Head of State. This changed in 1972 when Sri Lanka became a Republic with the President replacing the Queen as Head of State. The President’s role was a ceremonial one. This changed in 1978 when Prime Minister J.R. Jayewardene introduced a new constitution combining both the Head of Government and the Head of State in an Executive Presidency, which he then assumed. The Prime Minister’s power became significantly less, at times appearing to be a ceremonial role. The role of the Prime Minister since the Executive Presidency in Sri Lanka, especially relating to each of those Prime Ministers is a complicated issue deserving of an article of its own. However, what I am interested in is how the 19th Amendment changed the role of the President and the Prime Minister as well as its impact on the country.

The 19th Amendment was originally intended to abolish the Executive Presidency, but it seemed less likely that it would be carried out after the election of President Maithripala Sirisena. Prior to the 19th Amendment’s passing, there was a report that the 19th Amendment would create a dual executive system. Since the 19th Amendment reduced the powers of the President and increased the powers of the Prime Minister, there is a possibility that the 19th Amendment did in fact result in Sri Lanka having a dual executive system. I hope that this article will give information on this topic via people’s contributions on whether this is the case allowing us to make our own conclusions.

I decided to ask several notable people in Sri Lanka about this to get information on the subject and to present differing perspectives on the same issue. I thought that doing so would allow us to learn about the impact of the 19th Amendment, giving us the ability to think about this issue ourselves. I will be providing quotes from 6 Sri Lankans as well as from the paper “19th Amendment - The Wins, the Losses and the In-betweens” written 1 year ago in June 2015 by Nishan de Mel and Gehan Gunatilleke of Verité Research. The question I asked these 6 Sri Lankans is: "In the year since the 19th Amendment was passed, how do you think it changed the role of the President & Prime Minister and what impact do you think it had on Sri Lanka?"

On the issue of the current roles of the President and Prime Minister, Attorney at law and founder of the Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance (CIMOGG) Elmore Perera says “Without seeking the total abolition of the Executive Presidency, the 19th Amendment sought an arrangement for the coexistence of an Executive President and a Prime Minister. In a welcome display of Judicial Independence, the Supreme Court held that several provisions in the proposed 19th Amendment required the approval of the people at a referendum. Without seeking such approval, all such amendments were dropped and a mere shadow of the original Bill was presented to Parliament.” Economist and former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka W.A Wijewardena says on the Presidency, “President is still the Executive President in the interim period and therefore there is no real feeling about the dilution of the powers of the President.” Jehan Perera, Director of the National Peace Council in his thoughts on the President’s role as well as that of the Prime Minister is more positive as he says “Prior to the 19th Amendment, the power of the President was overwhelming in relation to the Prime Minister, which is what prompted R Premadasa to say that when he was Prime Minister he was like a peon. Prior to the 19th Amendment the President had the power to appoint the Cabinet on his own, and also to dissolve Parliament at his will after one year. The 19th Amendment has permitted the President and Prime Minister to work together on a basis of equality. This has been helpful to the sustenance of the coalition Government in which the two main parties are working together.”

Journalist and Media Personality Savithri Rodrigo says on the President’s role that “while the 19th Amendment ensures the elimination of authoritarian dictatorships, there still remains almost a tacit power that the post of President implies. The general citizen is unaware that the President is not 'God' anymore, a sentiment that will take some time to dissipate.” Regarding the joint role of the President and the Prime Minister she adds “However, on the footing of practical governance, there's much more discussion and even a process of 'agreeing to disagree' in governance decisions as was seen in the recent appointment of the Central Bank Governor, which again is a refreshing change.” Dhananath Fernando, Chief Operating Officer of public policy think tank Advocata Institute says “The role of the President and Prime Minister I am not very convinced. But personally I feel at least PM is somewhat responsible for the Parliament compared to previous Government. The composition and the calibre of the Parliament comes secondary regardless of what political flags they host.”

The 19th Amendment did change the relationship between the President and the Prime Minister. Elmore Perera says “One year after the 19th Amendment was passed, one of the few things that is clear is that the President and Prime Minister cannot survive, one without the other.” As the President and Prime Minister come from different political parties with different ideologies A.C. Visvalingam, President of CIMOGG says “The "cooperative(?)" tug-of-war between the President and the PM is also something in the nature of a safety feature.” The Verité Research paper said the following on the President’s and Prime Minister's role in Cabinet appointments: “While the President is constitutionally bound to obtain the advice of the Prime Minister when appointing Cabinet Ministers, he may change the composition of Cabinet portfolios without any advice or consultation. Under Article 43(3), the President is free to make changes to the composition of Cabinet portfolios as he sees fit. For instance, it is possible for the President to remove a Cabinet Minister’s portfolio and reassign that particular portfolio to another Minister without consulting the Prime Minister. The President is, however, bound under Article 46(3)(a) to obtain the advice of the Prime Minister when removing any particular Minister from office.” (Nishan de Mel and Gehan Gunatilleke, “19th Amendment - The Wins, the Losses and the In-betweens”, Verité: 2015)

On positive issues of the 19th Amendment, W.A Wijewardena mentions the following “The independent commissions have been appointed and they have already started to show their colours. For instance, the HR Commission and Police Commission on a number of occasions have shown that they are really independent and stood by people through their action.” and “The leadership in COPE has been given to Opposition with 10 Opposition members as against 7 Government party members.” Jehan Perera says the following on the positive issues “Due to the 19th Amendment's restriction of the power of the Executive, and the setting up of independent commissions to overlook key state institutions, the abuse of power is less, and with it the polarisation in society is less.” A.C. Visvalingam says “There is no question in my mind that the election of President Sirisena, the abandonment of the monstrous provisions of the 18th Amendment, and the passing of a few important articles that constitute the 19th Amendment have given us a goodly quantum of freedom from the fear of terrible reprisals.”

Regarding negative issues of the 19th Amendment, W.A Wijewardena says “The size of the Cabinet has swelled beyond imagination raising costs for the citizens.” A common criticism of this amendment I’ve heard is the issue of the Constitutional Council. Dr. A.C. Visvalingam says “Probably the worst feature of 19A is the composition of the Constitutional Council, which is packed with strong politicians and weak civilians.” Elmore Perera’s thoughts on this issue is “Rather than restoring the independence of the several nominally independent commissions, the stranglehold of the politicians was strengthened by increasing the number of Parliamentarians in the Constitutional Council from 3 to 7, whilst reducing the Civil Society representation from 7 to 3.” It seems that there is a risk of the 7 MPs on the Constitutional Council making politically motivated decisions which could lead to political appointments that are unsuitable.

On the amendment’s impact to the citizens of Sri Lanka, Dhananath Fernando says the “actual impact for the citizens is zero. The priority of the people was not this. It is true the 19th Amendment was a promise under 100 day programme and many more yet the impact is zero for a citizen. It does not mean 19th is a bad move. The real impact could have been made by making the independent commissions more dynamic.” Savithri Rodrigo’s thoughts on the citizen's impact are “the regular citizen is yet to understand, realise and acknowledge the cascading impact the 19th Amendment will have on the country's citizenry, eventually.”

It’s worth noting that the full effects of an amendment like this takes time. Dhananath Fernando says “It was a wise move undoubtably with a long term thinking. The benefits of such amendments cannot be seen over night. But dilution of Executive Powers and establishment of independent commissions are strengthening the individual freedom and it is an assurance for some extent that the rule and law is equal for everyone.” Savithri Rodrigo echoes a similar sentiment saying “One year on is yet too early for any tangible ramifications to permeate to the people, although the very fact that the 19th Amendment was passed with an overwhelming majority in Parliament was surely a relief and a sure sign that the Members of Parliament themselves had had enough of the misuse of power, which lay primarily in the Executive Presidency.” Dr. A.C. Visvalingam says “On the whole, there seems to be an improvement, but we shall have to wait for one or two more years to make a reliable judgment.”

I will give my thoughts on one of the issues discussed so far. Regarding W.A Wijewardena’s comment on the swelling of the Cabinet, I think that this is one of the problems of the 19th Amendment. The 19th Amendment did limit the size of the Cabinet Ministers to 30 and Deputy & State Ministers to 40, but included a clause allowing a larger number of Ministers in case a National Government is formed, which this Government used due to forming one. It’s possible that more Ministers might be needed for a National Government, but I do think there are definitely too many Ministers. It seems to me that this reflects a common weakness among successive Sri Lankan Governments of their wish to have more Ministers than necessary. The 19th Amendment intended to restrict the number of Ministers, but ended up being used to accommodate a larger number of Ministers which is doing the opposite of what it set out to do.

There is one issue that hasn’t been mentioned so far which is the 19th Amendment’s impact on the Right to Information Bill. The 19th Amendment acknowledged the Right to Information as a fundamental right in the constitution, and thus the Right to Information Bill was passed recently in June 2016.

So, we had a variety of views on this subject from people born in a diverse range of decades spanning the 1930s to the 1980s. A special thank you to W.A Wijewardena, Jehan Perera, A.C. Visvalingam, Elmore Perera, Dhananath Fernando, Savithri Rodrigo and to Nishan de Mel & Gehan Gunatilleke who were authors of the Verité Research paper for their contributions. It can be seen that the Prime Minister’s influence has been increased, but it seems to me that it was done without making significant changes to the roles of both the President and the Prime Minister. The 19th Amendment wasn’t the bill it was originally intended to be which included the plan to abolish the Executive Presidency. Admittedly, it has some weaknesses, but even with them this was a significant moment in Sri Lankan Politics as it not only reversed the damage done by the 18th Amendment, but further reduced Presidential Powers. It is a noteworthy achievement as it was the President himself who was campaigning for this bill to be passed.

The Importance of Patience with Investigations

When Sri Lanka’s current President, Maithripala Sirisena was elected on the 8th of January 2015, one of the themes of his campaign was to stand against corruption. As a result, investigations into allegations of corruption and other criminal activities of the previous regime began shortly after he came in to power. I am aware that many Sri Lankans don’t have faith in these investigations. I too would have liked the investigations to be faster and more efficient, but I do notice progress and believe it is important to be patient in these investigations. I will explain why I believe they take time referring both to the complexity of the procedures and the obstacles that delay these investigations.

If anyone reading this isn't Sri Lankan or is unfamiliar with Sri Lankan politics, there is something I’d like to say about the previous government. I believe one of the problems of the previous government was nepotism. There were family members of Ex-President Mahinda Rajapaksa involved in government who include his brothers Gotabaya Rajapaksa (Defence Secretary), Basil Rajapaksa (Minister) & Chamal Rajapaksa (Minister and then Speaker) and his sons MP Namal Rajapaksa & former Navy officer Yoshitha Rajapaksa. I mention their names in order to inform readers of their connection to the Ex-President as they will be referred to in this post.

First of all, I’d like to point out that investigations of this nature take time. You can’t just use Presidential Powers to throw people that you suspect in jail. If you do that, you are resorting to the same tactics that the previous administration used, such as when they imprisoned 2010 Presidential Candidate Sarath Fonseka after his defeat. Doing that goes against the rules of justice. The work of these investigations is to be carried out by the organisations conducting them. Human rights lawyer and former executive director of Transparency International Sri Lanka J.C. Weliamuna spoke of this in the Sunday Observer: “There should not be any difference between the previous government and this government. They should not only take the last government to task but I am sure once this institution is well established, which is still happening, they will go into the complaints against this government, also financial investigations are not like investigating murders or any other crimes. It takes sometimes months and years. It is a very complex diligent procedure and they are taking that fairly seriously and I am satisfied of the way they are working and CID and FCID are functioning.” It’s interesting to note that he mentioned that the FCID (Financial Crimes Investigation Division) is still being established. That institution was founded a year ago. Further, Deputy Minister Eran Wickramaratne mentioned in a recent interview (dailymirror.lk) that he thinks “that nothing can be rushed and whatever the action that is needed to be taken should after conducting thorough investigations. Innocent people should be protected and only those who have infringed the law should be taken to task.”

We don’t know how true the government is to their word about these investigations being independent, but Deputy Minister Eran Wickramaratne stated in a YouTube excerpt of a speech he made last March that people ask him about the investigations, elaborating “I’ve always wondered why people are actually asking a politician that question because this is not the role of the politician, this is the role of law enforcement and then subsequently the role of the judiciary. But the fact that they walk up to you and ask that question is because of our long history of politicisation of institutions of government in this country and that’s precisely what we want to depoliticise so law enforcement authorities are free to act and also that the judiciary will be free to act in the way they see fit”.

I will now list two reasons why these investigations take time. Firstly, persons of the previous administration, especially those at the very top have been taking measures to cover themselves and also the work of their lawyers can prevent their arrests. I believe that the files had been destroyed in government offices last year just as the transition of power occurred. Secondly, a problem with Sri Lanka’s legal system is that issues are known to move quite slowly.  

One obstruction last year was Justice Jagath Balapatabendi who was appointed by the previous President as Chairman of the Bribery Commission. The then speaker Chamal Rajapaksa was reported to have invited and met with Justice Balapatabendi in the first half of 2015. It is possible that this meeting was for Chamal to uncover information about the investigations against members of his family & political party and/or influence the investigations in their favour. A few days after this incident a commissioner resigned for “personal reasons” implying it was due to Justice Balapatabendi. This information was obtained from an article by Dr. A.C. Visvalingam. Justice Balapatabendi did eventually leave his office likely by resignation as he was replaced last October by Justice Titus Bodhipala Weerasuriya. His replacement should hopefully have improved these investigations. Like Justice Balapatabendi, the previous Attorney General Yuwanjana Wijayathilaka was appointed by the Ex-President and appears to still be loyal to him. He finished his term in January and the new Attorney General Jayantha Jayasuriya was appointed this month. I hope Jayantha will improve the efficiency of the Attorney General’s department.

There have been several incidents of politicians and their associates being summoned (often repeatedly) to record statements over their allegations. People being summed include Mahinda Rajapaksa, his wife Shiranthi Rajapaksa, their son MP Namal Rajapaksa, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Ex-Minister Wimal Weerawansa, former Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunga, former Provincial Minister Udaya Gammanpila, previous Central Bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal among others. I know these persons have not been charged yet, but the fact that many people have been summoned and some of them repeatedly shows those behind the investigations are working hard at it.  

I have seen some progress on the investigations and will now list some arrests that occurred last year.

• In March, MP and former Deputy Minister Sarana Gunawardana was arrested over a breach of trust & a financial fraud.
• In April, Ex-Minister Basil Rajapaksa was arrested along with two other personnel relating to the ‘Public Property Act’.
• In May, former MP Sajin de Vass Gunawardena was arrested on allegations of misusing vehicles that were property of the Presidential Secretariat & also Former Minister Johnston Fernando was arrested on allegations of misappropriations he conducted at Government owned business Sathosa.
• In December, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Nalaka Godahewa was arrested along with two others over an allegation of a financial irregularity said to have taken place at SEC. 

Fast forward to 2016, where last month Yoshitha Rajapaksa was arrested over alleged financial irregularities conducted at his television station Carlton Sports Network (CSN).

I am aware that almost all of these persons have got bail soon after and released, but these are the first steps taken in the justice process. It’s important to note that in December, Basil and Kingsley Ranawaka (one of the other two arrested with him last April) were called to appear in the Colombo High Court on the 10th of March which is less than a month away.  

This is my take on the situation. It is true that matters have proceeded slowly, but there have been some arrests, which I see as an important step in the process. I hope that the trials for those arrested won’t take a long time to begin and that those guilty of offences will be brought to justice.