By : A.A.M.NIZAM – MATARA .

The first part of this article focused attention to highlight the stupid activities of the defunct and demented former speak calling on western ambassadors to urge their governments to protest against the legitimate and constitutionally permissible action taken to dismiss Ranil   Wickremasinghe from the post of Prime Minister and the commendation and appreciations extended by patriotic Sri Lankans for saving the country and about the popularity of the current Prime Minister Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa.

This article to begin with intend to focus on views and comments presented by the Island political columnist the veteran journalist C.A. Chandraprema who is also an Attorney at Law.

In this week’s political column, he has written a lengthy article titled Resolution of Parliament is legal or illegal?” in which he makes an extensive explanation on the legal and constitutional positions relating to the dissolution-of parliament and calling for fresh elections. Chandreprema points out that under Articles e 33(2)(c), 70(5 62(2) the President is legally and constitutionally empowered to take the prudential action he has taken to overcome the crisis precipitated by the speaker’s defiance to accede to his directives as the Head of State and Head of Parliament and the government.

Chandraprema points out that Article le 70(5)stipulates among other things that upon the dissolution of Parliament by virtue of the provisions of paragraph (2) of Article 62, the President shall forthwith by Proclamation fix a date for the election of Members of Parliament, and shall summon the new Parliament to meet on a date not later than three months after the date of such Proclamation. The Gazette notification dissolving Parliament also mentions Section 10 of the Parliamentary Elections Act No.1 of 1981 which stipulates that The President shall, in every Proclamation dissolving Parliament or in any Order requiring the holding date of an election, specify the period during which nomination papers

shall be received by the returning officer; and the date on which the poll shall be taken, and all those requirements have been met in the President’s proclamation dissolving Parliament. The duty conferred on the Elections Commission by Article 104B (1) of the Constitution is that The Commission shall exercise, perform and discharge all such powers, duties and functions conferred on the Commission or the Commissioner-General of Elections, by the Constitution, and by the law relating to the election of Members of Parliament…”

He explains that Dr Jayampathy Wickremaratne had written to the Colombo Telegraph recently, arguing that the President cannot dissolve Parliament because the 19th Amendment had amended Article 70 of the Constitution so that the President cannot dissolve Parliament until the lapse of four years and six months from the date of its first meeting, unless Parliament requests the President to do so by a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority. To this he says President’s Counsel Manohara de Silva hand argued that the 19th Amendment

added to Article 33 of the Constitution the following passage – 33(2) (c)In addition to the powers, duties and functions expressly conferred or imposed on, or assigned to the President by the Constitution or other written law, the President shall have the power…to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament.”, and this provision in Article 33(2)(c) did not exist in the earlier Article 33 and had been specifically introduced by the 19th Amendment to the powers vested in the President. Hence the argument is that this provision had been specifically placed there to confer the power on the President to dissolve Parliament.

Chandraprema states that as it may, Parliament has now been dissolved by the President, the dates for the nomination period and the election have been fixed and the date for the new Parliament to meet has also been fixed,  I f someone goes to the Supreme Court against this dissolution, he will have to ask the SC to declare the dissolution to be illegal because article 70 says that Parliament cannot be dissolved until the lapse of four and a half years and that the 19th Amendment is more important than the right of the sovereign people to exercise their franchise. The judges of the Supreme Court no doubt observe the way the yahapalana government tried to dodge holding elections and the strenuous efforts that were made to get them to finally hold the local government elections after a delay of nearly three years. The judges of the Supreme Court will also observe the way the yahapalana government delayed provincial council elections by more than one year. They will also observed the manner in which the yahapalana government brought committee stage amendments to Bills that had been introduced in Parliament for completely different purposes, in order to completely change the system of elections to the local government and institutions and provincial councils for the purpose of indefinitely putting off elections to those bodies on the excuse that delimitation issues were causing the delay. Chamdraprema points out that the Supreme Court knows that this reluctance to hold elections was itself adding to the unrest in the country. Now at long last an election has been declared. In a context where there was dissension spreading throughout society due to the continuous postponement of elections by the yahapalana government, and he asks can anyone expect the Supreme Court to say that the holding of an election to allow the sovereign people to exercise their franchise is illegal and that the Parliamentary election should not be held?

Chandraprema also states if  any political party goes to the SC to obtain a declaration that holding a Parliamentary election is illegal and that the people should not be allowed to exercise their sovereign right through the franchise, simply because the election is being held before they completed their full term of office, what will that sound lie to the voting public who have been complaining for more than three years about long delays in holding elections? The arguments the yahapalanites will have to make in court against holding an election and the response from the other side will be worth listening to!

The UNP suffering from election phobia, fearful of facing the voters as a result of serious crimes committed by them during the last 3 ½ has said that it would mount a legal challenge against t Maithripala Sirisena’s sacking of the legislature. This has been told to AFP News Agency by the leading butterfly Quisling Mangala Samaraweera. Flaying Pre4sident Sirisena in very low derogatory manners he has said the UNP along with its allies had an absolute majority in the 225-member assembly and despite the sacking of the assembly, the party would publicly demonstrate its majority to the people. He has further stated that the will fight Sirisena in Courts, fight him in parliament and will also fight against Sirisena’s tyranny at the polls. `-This agnostic quisling who is notorious for humiliating people and was branded as the late Prime Minister Madam Sirimabvo Bandaranaike as a male prostitute has said that Sirisena was brought forward to be a Nelson Mandela of Sri Lanka, but he has become a Robert Mugabe.

The political chameleon and ship owner Rajitha Senaratne who unsuccessfully attempted to get back the Health Ministry portfolio by paying several hundred million rupees to some politicians has adopted the story of the jackal and the grapes and in their election, phobia has said there is no need for elections and they will go to the Courts against holding elections. He said that the international community (their international community is a few western countries in the world) does not recognize the new gove3rnment and they will impose sanctions against this country in the future. Together with Pa. Cha.Ranawaka, who has allegations relating to frauds in coal imports and establishing Air Pollution Testing Centres Rajitha has said that they will form a coalition if it becomes necessary for them to go to polls.

The Mahanayake theroes chief incumbents of temples throughout the country, several prelates of other religions have hailed the action taken by the President and have pointed that the President’s commendable action prevented imposing a federal constitution and dividing the country to eight provinces, denying the prime place for Buddhism which existed since the time of King Devanampiyatissa, destruction of agricultural lands and local agriculture, making the country dependent on imported food, sale of national assets, and water in th4e  tanks, entering into slavish trade agreements, and spiralling food and fuel prices etc.  General public too have expressed these sentiments.

Meanwhile, President Sirisena made a special statement to the Nation yesterday (11^th) to explain about that forced him to dissolver the Parliament and call for fresh elections.  He said that the Ranil Wickremesinghe government’s complicity in the multi-billion-rupee Central Bank robbery” and the defiant and questionable conduct of parliament Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, forced him to dissolve parliament and order fresh elections. He said

Despite persistent demands, the Wickremesinghe government made no serious attempt to get Mahendran extradited from Singapore.

Parliament Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, who belongs to the UNP, refused to recognize the sacking of Ranil Wickremesinghe from the Premiership and the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa by the President on October 26.

Jayasuriya declared that the sacking of Wickremesinghe was unconstitutional, as according to him, the President had no unbridled power to sack a Prime Minister who enjoyed majority support in parliament.

The Speaker further said that the seat allotted to the Prime Minister in parliament would not be given to Rajapaksa. He also opposed the prorogation of parliament from October 27 to November 15 and said that he would summon parliament on his own on November 7^th

(to be continued)