No authority for SC to hear petitions on President’s order – AG
Posted on December 5th, 2018

Attorney General has commenced making submissions before the Supreme Court over the petition against the dissolution of the Parliament.

Accordingly, he has stated that the Supreme Court does not have the legal authority to hear the petitions against the dissolution of the Parliament.

Attorney General stated that the fundamental rights petitions filed against the dissolution of the Parliament charge that President Maithripala Sirisena has violated the Constitution of the country.

Presenting submissions further, he said that Article 38 (2) of the Constitution has clearly mentioned the actions that should be taken at a situation in which the President has violated the Constitution.

In accordance with the relevant Article of the Constitution, if the President has intentionally violated the Constitution, a resolution should be passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Members voting in its favour and the allegations contained in the relevant resolution should then be referred by the Speaker to the Supreme Court for inquiry and report, the Attorney General said.

Stating that, the Supreme Court should subsequently conduct a hearing on the allegations charged against the President and submit a report to the Speaker of the Parliament in that regard, the Attorney General pointed out the incapability of filing fundamental rights petitions challenging the President’s orders in this manner.

Had the President violated the Constitution of the country, his actions can be challenged only at the Parliament, the Attorney General has pointed out further.

Reportedly, the hearing of the petitions against the dissolution of the Parliament is still ongoing.

The petitions filed against the dissolution of the Parliament was taken up before the Supreme Court today (05) for the second consecutive day before the seven-judge bench consisting of Supreme Court Justices consisting of Chief Justice Nalin Perera, Priyantha Jayawardena, Prasanna Jayawardena, Sisira de Abrew, Vijith Malalgoda, Buwaneka Aluwihare and Murdu Fernando.

The relevant petitions have been filed by several political parties including the United National Party (UNP), Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA) and the All Ceylon People’s Congress and organisations and activists such as the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), Attorney Aruna Laksiri and also a member of Elections Commission Prof. S. R. H. Hoole.

28 Responses to “No authority for SC to hear petitions on President’s order – AG”

  1. Dilrook Says:

    [Quote] the Supreme Court does not have the legal authority to hear the petitions against the dissolution of the Parliament. [Unquote]

    Really? So the Supreme Court has no authority to hear fundamental rights petitions? Is it a joke? The Constitution does not bar anyone from filing a FR petition just because the president is involved. He has confused between upholding a fundamental right of the people and punishment for deliberate violation of the Constitution. The two are independent. They can proceed independently.

  2. Randeniyage Says:

    @Dilrook

    I am sure you also note that three people are behaving extremely strangely. This cannot be natural.

    1. Sirisena
    2. AG
    3. IGP

    Few more incidents are also very strange

    1. Why Sirisena disrupted the NCM motion against Ranil
    2. So called conspiracy to kill the president. ( In no other country in the world action on such an dangerous move goes so slow and lethargically). Please draw your attention to similar things happened in Maldives.
    3. Everything happened after repeated India/Thirupathy visits by all these stupid leaders.

    Will Sirisena ask for India’s help now ?

  3. Randeniyage Says:

    India is destabilizing our motherland creating all these havoc, making use of our GREEDY LEADERS, all of them – NO EXCEPTION.
    ALL THESE POLITICAL LEADERS ARE NOT PATRIOTS. So, stop supporting them and bring your attention and affection to our motherland.
    We have no money, not police, no army, NO FIGHTER JETS, no intelligence services, no key personable like IGP, CDS, no proper lawyers, doctors bodies operating honestly.

    It appears like we only have one thing right. Justice system. Sirisena is crippling it too. Don’t abuse it , please.

    INDIA IS COMING

  4. Dilrook Says:

    Yes; India is behind this too. India invited Mahinda, Ranil and Sampanthan bypassing Sirisena and hatched the plot. However, Sirisena’s action could have saved Sri Lanka from the Indian invasion. I was very hopeful.

    Sirisena lost his way. Mahinda could have obtained a majority in parliament or if he couldn’t, he should have immediately resigned. Instead of confronting the JVP, Mahinda should have patched up with the JVP. Now all of them have played into India’s hands. Sirisena should have got Gotabaya into parliament and appointed him as PM instead of Mahinda. He commands far more support (at least fewere opponents) than Mahinda.

    Thirupathy crowd has lost their everything. People must reject all 3 Thirupathy jokers. They are behind this mess.

  5. NeelaMahaYoda Says:

    Dilrook and Randeniya

    Petition lawyers were stunned and Dumbfounded when the Attorney General gave his presentation

    The Attorney General presented a very long and powerful statement today (05) in the case of the seven-member bench of the Fundamental Rights case hearing the gazette notification dissolving Parliament.

    The lawyers of the petitioners were dumbfounded when their arguments were demolished and shred into pieces by AG’s counter argument made

    We all know that both of you were trying to interpret constitution by reading bits and pieces here and there. But looks like you did not understand it the way Attorney General had done.

    AG said that Article 38 (2) of the Constitution has clearly mentioned the actions that should be taken at a situation in which the President has violated the Constitution.

    The impugned conduct of the President to dissolve the parliament fell within the Powers of the President as the head of State.He has also objected to the Supreme Court, undertaking to examine the decisions taken by the President, as Head of State and Head of the Armed forces. President’s actions can not be challenged in SC

    It is also not subject to Article 126 on fundamental rights.

    The judicial powers of the president were exercised through the Supreme Court, Article 33/3 referred to the President’s power to dissolve the parliament, as the Head of State, Armed forces etc.

  6. NeelaMahaYoda Says:

    Dilrook

    you say “The Constitution does not bar anyone from filing a FR petition just because the president is involved”.

    AG says “President’s actions can not be challenged in SC” and Article 38 (2) of the Constitution has clearly mentioned the actions that should be taken at a situation in which the President has violated the Constitution.

    So AG says you can not file a FR petition against the President and President is immune.

    This condition is not created by Sirisena. This is some left over from JR’s constitution

  7. NeelaMahaYoda Says:

    That is according to the constitution. But we can not predict the decision of the seven-judge bench.

    Read the article published by Lankaweb on “How the West destroyed Sukarno -The First President of Indonesia”UK Foreign Office `dirty tricks’ helped overthrow Indonesia’s President Sukarno in 1966. Over the next 30 years, half a million people died.

    We do not know how far the West can influence on Judiciary in Sri Lanka. We will know it tomorrow for sure.

  8. Randeniyage Says:

    @NMY
    AG has parroted the sections of the constitution that stipulate how to remove the president if he intentionally violates the constitution. I thought, tomorrow’s (7th) decision will confirm whether or not president’s action is against the constitution or not and I expect they will say so.
    I thought there is no reason whatsoever that the supreme court cannot be consulted ( or it cannot give an opinion) on President’s wrong decision.

  9. Randeniyage Says:

    @NMY
    Article 35 covers the immunity of the president. 35(3) clearly states that ,
    “The immunity conferred by the provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply to proceedings in the Supreme Court under paragraph (2) of Article 129 and …”
    Article 129(2) is exactly about the impeachment.
    As per 35(1) 2nd para , same thing applies to fundamental rights of persons.

  10. NeelaMahaYoda Says:

    Randeniya
    First, you must understand the simple fact that Consulting the supreme court for clarification of the constitution and requesting the supreme court to reverse a presidential order are two distinctive functions.

    The fundamental rights petitions filed against the dissolution of the Parliament charge that President Maithripala Sirisena has violated the Constitution of the country. Petitioners expect the supreme court to declare that the president action violated the constitution.

    But AG’s point that Article 38 (2) of the Constitution has clearly mentioned the actions that should be taken at a situation in which the President has violated the Constitution

    In accordance with the relevant Article of the Constitution, if the President has intentionally violated the Constitution, a resolution should be passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Members voting in its favour and the allegations contained in the relevant resolution should then be referred by the Speaker to the Supreme Court for inquiry and report

    The Supreme Court should subsequently conduct a hearing on the allegations charged against the President and submit a report to the Speaker of the Parliament in that regard, .( Again the supreme court is giving their opinion only)

    The Attorney General has pointed out that had the President violated the Constitution of the country, his actions can be challenged only at the Parliament,

    The Attorney General pointed out that it is inappropriate to filing fundamental rights petitions to challenge the President’s orders in this manner.

  11. NeelaMahaYoda Says:

    Attorney General in his submission stated as follows:

    The allegations on the dissolution of Parliament prior to the expiration of four years and six months and the intentional violation of the Constitution and an abuse o power by the President are not justifiable under Article 126 of the Constitution as there is a specific and prescribed procedure set out in Article 38(2) of the Constitution, setting out the manner in which the Supreme Court may exercise jurisdiction regarding her alleged intentional violation of the Constitution and abuse of power by the President.

    Any Member of Parliament may by a writing addressed to the Speaker, give notice of a resolution alleging that the President is permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office by reason of mental or physical infirmity or that the President had been guilty of intentional violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, misconduct or corruption involving the abuse of powers of his office or any offence under any law, involving moral turpitude.

    He is to set out full particulars of the allegation or allegations made and seek an inquiry and report thereon by the Supreme Court.

    No notice of such resolution shall be entertained by the Speaker or placed on the Order Paper of Parliament unless it complies with the provision and such resolution is passed by no less than one-half of the whole number of Members of Parliament.

    Where such resolution is passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of members voting in its favour, the allegation or allegations contained in such resolution shall be referred by the Speaker to the Supreme Court for inquiry and report.

    Where the Supreme Court reports to Parliament, the Parliament may by a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Member remove the President from office.

    When the Executive Head of State is vested with paramount power and duties, he should be given immunity in the discharge of his functions.

    Article 38 has made provision for the removal of the President for intentional violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, misconduct or corruption and any offence under any law involving moral turpitude.

    It is essential that special immunity must be conferred on the person holding such high executive office from being subject to legal process or legal action and from being harassed by frivolous actions.

    That is the rationale for the immunity cover afforded for the President’s actions, both official and private.

    However, this would not be the case, as the Supreme Court may continue to exercise jurisdiction in respect of the conduct of the President which constitutes executive and administrative action.

    The acts of President impugned do not constitute executive and administrative action under Article 126 and is therefore covered by the immunity conferred by Article 35 of the Constitution.

    The dissolution of Parliament cannot be considered an act of the government or agency of the government to constitute executive and administrative action for the purpose of Article 126.

    The dissolution is a power exercised by the President under Article 33(c )and 70(1) qua (in the capacity of) the Head of State and the Supreme Court cannot exercise jurisdiction in respect of such conduct under Article 126.

    Article 126 was not intended to be an instrument by which the judicial arm of government could usurp the function of the Head of State.

    The dissolution of Parliament cannot constitute a violation of fundamental rights. It enhances the sovereignty of the people to exercise their franchise.

    The President as custodian of the executive power of the people is empowered to exercise the power to dissolve Parliament in the best interests of the people.

    The proclamation of dissolution of Parliament was exercised by the President in good faith and in the best interests of the People.

    The President’s power to dissolve Parliament at any time is reinforced by Article 62(2) of the Constitution.

    The power to dissolve Parliament is a prerogative power which cannot be subject to judicial review. The President’s proclamation is a political question which courts are ill-equipped to review

  12. Ancient Sinhalaya Says:

    Traitor chief die hard catholic token Buddhist bay gal karaya mega thief mega thakkadiya chief samanalaya
    walking crime bomb (against Sinhalese Buddhists, Sri Lanka and Buddhism only) Batalande wandakaya Pol Pot [email protected]_leech wickrama Sinhala killer is trying to get the job back and die on the job since the traitor low life
    knows it is going to be hanged for the crimes it has committed during the last 40 years.

    Apart from the Wandakaya, anyone with more than one brain cell knows it is a futile effort. How is the traitor low
    life going to hang on to power? Traitor chief’s plan was to murder MY3 and get the job and die on the job. There
    is one problem. How can it carry on without elections, without enough C brigade police, army etc. etc. Ex Pathala
    Man PM ponil thinks it can carry on again murdering Sinhalese and create mayhem and hang on to power. For this
    you need army, police support. Now the army, police know the true colours of the traitor anti Sinhalese, anti
    Buddhist, anti Sri Lanka catholic-run UNPatirotic_rats party. So none of them will be a party to another
    Sinhalese cull! So wandakaya you are finished for good. Because you are so scared for your pathetic life,
    you can’t understand this simple truth, the curse of Mother Lanka. Do the decent thing and jump into
    the sea without further destroying Mother Lanka, Buddhism and the Sinhalese race! Sea is only a few minutes
    walk from the hell hole you holed up at the moment. You can ask your fellow traitor thieving, lying thugs to
    join and leave Mother Lanka in peace!

    Sinhalese traitors who support Wandakaya, just have one look at the traitor chief’s leading lieutenants: Tamil
    Nadu Alliance aka TNA, Sri Lanka Multiplying Community aka SLMC who are only after dismembering Mother
    Lanka to have their drealam and mussisthan. But Wandakaya is prepared to break up Mother Lanka to save
    its pathetic life. Sinhalese do you want to be a party that ultimate trachery? Forget the rice packet or the
    Rs 1000 or the Bond scam money. Be a Sinhalese for the future generations’ sake!

  13. Dilrook Says:

    AG’s response is not to the the question.

    The Supreme Court can hear any FR case against anyone. People’s fundamental rights have been violated by the dissolution of parliament against the provisions of the Constitution. It must be redressed before punishing the wrongdoer. This is the point.

    If so, the second point is, how to punish the wrongdoer. This is where the AG responds. He avoids responding to the first issue and simply says the Supreme Court has no authority which is wrong. Leave has been granted by the Supreme Court already to proceed with the case! So it has authority. That matter is also determined by the Supreme Court and not by the AG. If he said that outside court, he must have been punished for making such comments about the Supreme Court and on fundamental rights of the people.

    The verdict has been postponed to the 8th.

  14. NeelaMahaYoda Says:

    Dilrook
    You got it wrong again.

    AG says there is no violation of constitution by dissolution of parliament since The President’s power to dissolve Parliament at any time is reinforced by Article 62(2) of the Constitution.

  15. Dilrook Says:

    62(2) says – Unless Parliament is sooner dissolved, every Parliament shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer, and the expiry of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissolution of Parliament.

    It has nothing to do with the president.

    President’s right to dissolve parliament is in 33(2) and 70(1).

    Article 33(2) confers the power to dissolve parliament.

    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 –
    (c) to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament;

    However, this comes within the context of his duties in 33(1).

    It shall be the duty of the President to –
    (a) ensure that the Constitution is respected and upheld;
    (b) promote national reconciliation and integration;
    (c) ensure and facilitate the proper functioning of the Constitutional Council and the institutions referred to in Chapter VIIA; and
    (d) on the advice of the Election Commission, ensure the creation of proper conditions for the conduct of free and fair elections and referenda.

    Therefore, although the president can violate the Constitution without any repurcussions, his right to dissolve parliament comes after he has discharged his duties which includes the Constitution is respected and upheld, etc.

    Article 70(1).

    The President may by Proclamation, summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament:

    Provided that the President shall not dissolve Parliament until the expiration of a period of not less than four years and six months from the date appointed for its first meeting, unless Parliament requests the President to do so by a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Members (including those not present), voting in its favour.

    Therefore it is clear the president has no right to dissolve this parliament until February 2020. Thereafter he can dissolve it anytime. This is if the correct verdict is given. If for some reason the correct verdict is not given the approach will be to minimize disruptions but to retain the perception that the court is independent. In that event it may say dissolution was correct but Mahinda cannot be the PM. All other verdicts worsen the situation. However, that means criminal misappropriation charges against Mahinda and his ministers. This is Sirisena’s preferred outcome. It gives him the ability to impose civic disability on Mahinda and his close allies who held ministries illegally. But not the correct verdict.

  16. Randeniyage Says:

    Thank you NMY and Dilrook.
    Two of you cleared all doubts of the readers.

    I agree 100% with Dilrook’s writing here, including specially all important last paragraph.

    What Sirisena is trying to do ( with the aid of set of lawyers who are fooling him)

    1. Avoid impeachment and civic disability possibility on himself.

    2. Keep bargaining powers to himself on all parties by not prosecuting Ranil and Mahinda on thier wrongdoings.
    ( Today the leaked the conversation between Keerthi tennakoon and his staff member which indicates Sirisena has leaked the full report to Keerthi to be released to Sirasa but keep it from public , just few days ago. There was a secret meeting between Ranil and Mahinda in the parliament complex and no one knows what they negotiated)

    3. Become president again and keep it for his son or daughter together with SLFP party. (But he has become a joker and he cannot become another Mahinda)

    HE WILL FAIL.
    MOTHER LANKA WILL WIN IN THE END.

  17. aloy Says:

    President says by 11th of this month a solution for this problem will be found. If that happens, I wonder what will happen to these traitors who are batting for RW, the central bank robber?.

  18. Hiranthe Says:

    Fate of Mother Lanka is in the hands of the following SC Bench now.

    1. Chief Justice Nalin Perera,
    2. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare,
    3. Justice Sisira J de Abrew,
    4. Justice Priyantha Jayawardena,
    5. Justice Prasanna S. Jayawardena,
    6. Justice Vijith K. Malalgoda and
    7. Justice Murdu Fernando.

    Lets see if they are going by the word by word of a document made by selfish humans with errors and interpret it as a holy book in favour of a bunch or rogues who are waiting to sell piece by piece of Mother Lanka.

    They have to remember that they were made educated free by Mother Lanka herself to sit in such high places. If they contribute to the destruction of Mother Lanka, they will pay back severely for this bad deed.

    They will be easily provided with free foreign education for their children and many other perks and bribes if they go with the West’s demand of placing back Run-nil in the driving seat.

    Let’s wait and see!!

  19. aloy Says:

    I may be trying to change the attention of the readers on another direction. The world order is changing in a very fast rate; China will soon take the leadership. And we are going to be left behind because our selfish leader are fighting among themselves to come to power. The west themselves will lose their dominance as can be seen from the links I am giving below. If Elon Musk is right the value of fossil fuel will vanish in the near future and with that foremost place will go for the storage of sun’s energy that comes our way. For that Graphine is the basic ingredient needed and we have the purest form in abundance. There is one of our guys who heads the department in a university in the UK which has successfully developed the process of manufacture of such storage batteries. We must get people like Elon Musk to direct our leaders to take bold decisions. Our education system should be changed to produce the skills needed for this change.

    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/KtbxLvHLpLKTlWTgcnFPqxVXPKzTrLGSfL?projector=1
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/QgrcJHrtsvkrDpZsddZTkrKTMBfspnbrWFv?projector=1
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/QgrcJHsHpqWJTjVXnSHvpVsBxPBQftDfpJV?projector=1

  20. Ananda-USA Says:

    I have said it before, and I’ll say it again:

    The President’s SUPREME DUTY is to PROTECT the nation and the INTERESTS of the voting citizens; it is NOT TO PROTECT a HIJACKED Parliament dominated by a crew of criminals who have LOST THE SUPPORT of the Voters.

    As there is CLEARLY a DOUBT that the UNP/Yamapalanaya commands the support of the voters who ELECTED it in 2015, there is BUT ONE WAY FORWARD: DISSOLVE the Parliament and HOLD NEW PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS!

    To that end, the PRESIDENT should IGNORE the COURTS if NEED BE, DECLARE a National EMERGENCY & MARTIAL LAW if NECESSARY, DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT, and HOLD NEW PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS to DETERMINE the VOTER’S WILL!

    When ALL ELSE FAILS, ADOPT the SIMPLEST SOLUTION!

  21. Randeniyage Says:

    Aloy,

    When China take the leadership we should send all our clothes now selling to USA to China. USA is the biggest market currently.
    China will not buy our Tea , they export plenty of Tea
    China will not buy our cloths they export plenty of cloths
    China will not buy or Fish ( they will do business with bigger more important countries like Vietnam which is next door

    We will be out of cloths unless we completely change.

    We have to live in this world until China become the leader and plan our strategies after we become a stable prosperous country like Singapore.

  22. Dilrook Says:

    Ethnicity of the Supreme Court panel is the best for the case. No one can find fault with them on ground of ethnicity.

    However, some racist elements supporting a certain faction have a big problem with a Christian CJ. They have forgotten that their CJ Mohan Peiris was also a Christian.

    People should not be drawn to nonsensical issues and focus only on the law. They must be interpreted as it is and as it was intended by their makers.

    The verdict may be delivered today or next week. It has to be taken peacefully. The call to violence by fools on both sides must be rejected.

    The nation is not in danger by any of the judgements. That is just a rubbish politically motivated war call.

    When WJM Lokubandara was elected Speaker of parliament in 2004, UPFA found fault with it saying UNP sided with TNA to elect him. Now his son is a secretary of Mahinda.

    What we need now is political stability, democracy, rule of law and economic stability. Holding them and people as a human shield is terrorism.

    To avoid this type of nonsense again, executive presidency must be abolished as a matter of priority.

  23. aloy Says:

    Dilrook,

    Do not forget that it was EP that saved our country at the height of Tiger war when they tried to save their VP by the intervention of Western countries. Why are the UNP parliamentarians unable to find that it was RW who instigated the bond scam?. That is because all of them have been bribed. So, if you allow a parliament to decide the fate of our country there is no guarantee that they will do the right thing.
    It was just yesterday the new court system that have been set up to try the mega thieves of previous government to hear the cases fast allowed one guy to go abroad. To my mind the court did not do justice on behalf of the people. So, we cannot rely on all these systems to function properly and safeguard the interest of the country. We have to depend on somebody akin to a king.

    Randeniyage,

    You seem to have misunderstood my above post. I did not say that we should follow China. I mentioned China as a corollary only. In any case US is not buying our stuff because they like us; they do so because our products are competitive and also manufactured ethically. I do not think that you viewed the relevant link; there was some problem as it went through my mail box. I was trying to emphasized the advancement the Chinese have made in the field of 3D printing. We too can use it to build RISC-V open source architecture computers that can be used on educational programmes just like what UK did with their BBC Micro in 80s and 90s and now with their Rasberry pi programme. Google Rasberry pi and see what is happening there. Both these programme became multi billion businesses for them. I give below the link to that video again:

    “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI7QcsH4O3g&feature=youtu.be”

  24. Dilrook Says:

    The war could have been won in a few years if not for executive presidency. It took 5 executive presidents to win the war and 2 executive presidents to overcome the second JVP insurrection. However, PM Sirima ended in days.

    Had we a PM we could have won the war in a few years. Sirima and Sir John stood up to international pressure far more than any executive president. Please note a president is immune only from local law. He/she is not immune from international law.

    Executive presidency made minorities kingmakers. It must go as Chandrika, Mahinda and Sirisena promised. They all became presidents thanks to this promise.

  25. Dilrook Says:

    Various groups subtly implying violence if the Supreme Court gives the correct verdict. This is disgusting. Whatever the outcome the Supreme Court must uphold the Constitution. If the Constitution is wrong, that must be fixed by the parliament. It is not the task of the court to make amends to laws or estimate people’s wishes. Violence always lost in Sri Lanka so no need to fear violence.

  26. aloy Says:

    Dilrook,
    The picture at Sirima’s and now are quite different. Minorities at that time were 18 and 5%. Right now it is probably 18 and 10% and they vote in parliament as one block. That is the reason why MR was unable to show majority. Also you have not cleared the first para directed to you in my above post.

  27. Dilrook Says:

    Not so. At that time our economy was much smaller and we were even under the British until 1972. Still Sirima, DS, SWRD and even Sir John (1951 on China) managed to stand firm than all our executive presidents. When western governments and oil companies refused to honour the China-Sri Lanka trade deal in 1951, the then PM threatened to nationalize those oil companies. They caved in and refueled Chinese ships in Trincomalee. Sadly 2 EPs are dragging their feet on a trade deal with China since 2008 and no EP allows Chinese ships to regularly dock in Trincomalee fearing India.

    Our executive presidents made the “international community” so important because all of them except 2 had/have relatives who come under the law of western countries.

    Thankfully we didn’t have executive presidents in the 1940s to 1972. Otherwise Sinhala will never be recognised as an official language, Sri Lanka will not be a republic, oil companies would be making political decisions (as they do around the world), etc.

    At that time minorities were far more than now in percentage terms. Check the census.

    Removing EP is empowering Sinhalese. If India had EP, minority friendly Congress will be winning it all the time by offering appeasements to Muslims. If UK has an EP, Muslims will be kingmakers. War time reduced minority voting which dented minority clout but that is gone in peace time. EP must go.

  28. Dilrook Says:

    Finally some Sinhala elements will also join the LTTE Rump and the West in calling our judiciary biased. They have been saying that all along!

    And that justifies an international court to look into alleged war crimes, etc.

    Funnily enough, they call themselves patriots.

    In petty political battles we tend to compromise national security. No one thinks of the country.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2019 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress