news
Constitution making: SJB won’t make submissions to Expert Committee
Kiriella: Why should we go to reinvent the wheel?
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Chief Opposition Whip and senior Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) MP Lakshman Kiriella yesterday (20) said that his party wouldn’t make representations to the government appointed Expert Committee engaged in formulating constitutional proposals.
The Cabinet appointed the committee in early Sept, less than a month after the general election in Aug 2020. Lawmaker Kiriella said so in response to The Island query whether the SJB would make representations to the nine-member committee chaired by Romesh de Silva, PC. The deadline for submission of proposals is Dec 31, 2020.
The top SJB spokesperson dismissed the committee as a government body engaged in a propaganda exercise. When The Island pointed out that as the Justice Ministry had called for public proposals in that regard therefore the breakaway UNP faction could take advantage of the opportunity, lawmaker Kiriella said that the previous parliament comprehensively dealt with the issue. The then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe spearheaded the process.
“Why should we reinvent the wheel”, MP Kiriella asked, urging what he called the SLPP appointed committee to examine the constitution making process undertaken by the previous parliament. Those who now identified themselves as the SLPP fully participated in the process though that grouping was then called the Joint Opposition, MP Kiriella said. The incumbent government couldn’t simply ignore what had been agreed in the previous parliament, the Kandy District SJB leader said.
“Of course, we reached consensus on some issues though there were differences. But, political parties represented in parliament largely agreed on the proposals. Therefore, the work undertaken by the previous parliament could be quite useful and should be the basis for the ongoing effort,” lawmaker Kiriella asserted.
The Justice Ministry recently called for submissions from the public pertaining to 11 subjects namely (1) nature of the State (2) fundamental rights (3) language (4) directive principles of State policy (5) the executive (President/cabinet of ministers/the Public service) (6) the legislature (7) franchise and elections, including referenda (8) decentralization/devolution of power/power sharing (9) the judiciary (10) public finance and (11) public security. The Justice Ministry also welcomed any other proposals specifically not referred to above.
Asked whether the UNP pushed for early Provincial Council polls, lawmaker Kiriella said that the government, in the run-up to 2019 presidential and August 2020 parliamentary polls repeatedly pledged introduce a new Constitution. So instead rushing to hold PC polls, the government should unveil its constitutional proposals as soon as possible, Kiriella said.
“Let us see how the incumbent administration intended to address the national problem. The UNP introduced 13th Amendment to the Constitution to address the grievances of the minorities. Mahinda Rajapaksa, in his capacity as the war winning President offered 13 plus. Explain what the President, the Prime Minister envisaged in terms of the proposed 13th Amendment,” the former UNPer said.
Kiriella said that the national question couldn’t be settled without sufficient devolution of powers to ensure the minorities felt comfortable and confident living among the majority community. Kiriella, who had served both SLFP and UNP led cabinets, said that during their constitution making process during the previous administration, Chief Ministers representing provinces other than the North and East, pushed for greater powers.
Responding to another query, MP Kiriella said that there hadn’t been a previous instance since JRJ introduced 1978 Constitution, where all political parties participated in a common agenda meant to bring in a new law.
The MP alleged having wasted several months in a high profile bid to secure the passage of the 20 Amendment with a 2/3 majority, the government wasn’t really sure of its strategy.
“Obviously, SLPP is divided over the new constitution making proposals,” MP Kiriella said, pointing out that the SLPP was yet to submit its proposals to its own committee.
Author
- News Advertiesment
See Kapruka’s top selling online shopping categories such as Toys, Grocery, Flowers, Birthday Cakes, Fruits, Chocolates, Clothing and Electronics. Also see Kapruka’s unique online services such as Money Remittence,News, Courier/Delivery, Food Delivery and over 700 top brands. Also get products from Amazon & Ebay via Kapruka Gloabal Shop into Sri Lanka.
Author
-
sdfsdf sdf sf sf sdf sf sdf
Author
PCoI on Easter Sunday attacks:
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC is not bound by recommendations made by the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (P CoI) into the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, or presidential directives in that regard, according to authoritative sources.
They said that the AG couldn’t under any circumstances initiate legal proceedings until he had received the full PCoI report.
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa received the PCoI report on Feb 1. The President’s Office delivered a set of PCoI reports to Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena on Feb 23, a day after the report was presented to the cabinet of ministers. The Island raised the matter with relevant authorities in the wake of a section of the media reporting the PCoI recommending punitive measures against former President Maithripala Sirisena, Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando, IGP Pujitha Jayasundera, Chief of State Intelligence Senior DIG Nilantha Jayawardena, Chief of National Intelligence retired DIG Sisira Mendis and All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) leader and Samagi Jana Balavegaya MP Rishad Bathiudeen et al over the Easter Sunday carnage.
Sources pointed out that due to the inordinate delay in sharing the PCoI report with the AG, the department hadn’t been able to take preliminary measures required to initiate the proceedings. Sources said that a team of officers would take at least six weeks or more to examine the report before tangible measures could be taken.
With the AG scheduled to retire on May 24, 2021, even if the AG Department received the P CoI it would be quite a tough task to initiate proceedings ahead of retirement, sources said. However, in terms of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution enacted in last October, both the AG and the IGP could receive extensions beyond 60 at the President’s discretion.
Dappula de Livera received an Acting appointment as the AG a week after the Easter Sunday carnage whereas his predecessor Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, was elevated to Chief Justice.
Responding to another query, sources said that the Attorney General two weeks ago requested Secretary to the President for a copy of the P CoI. However, the AG was yet to receive one, sources said. In spite of the AG not receiving a P CoI copy, the AG had instructed the IGP to obtain a copy of the report when he requested the police to complete investigations into the Easter Sunday carnage. The AG issued specific instructions after having examined police files pertaining to the investigations.
The IGP, too, hadn’t received a copy so far though some sections of the report were in the public domain.
Agriculture Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage displayed at a live political programme on Derana a copy of the P CoI report he received at the cabinet meeting earlier in the day.
Sources said that the Attorney General’s Department couldn’t decide on a course of action in respect of the Easter carnage on the basis of a section of the report. In terms of the Commission of Inquiry Act (Section 24), the AG enjoyed significant powers/authority in respect of investigations; sources said adding that the Department urgently required both the P CoI report and police investigations report. The Attorney General’s Department has raised the delay in receiving a P CoI report amidst the Catholic Church attacking the government over the same issue.
Sources said that ministerial committee appointed to study the P CoI report couldn’t decide on how to proceed with the recommendations and the matter was entirely in the hands of the AG. Sources pointed out that the delay on the part of the government to release the report had received the attention of sections of the international media, including the New York Times. Public Security Minister retired Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera having met Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith at the Bishop’s House on Dec 8, 2020 said that the AG would get a copy of the P CoI report once the President received it. Minister Weerasekera said that the CID had handed over the relevant files after having completed investigations into eight blasts. Referring to the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) report on the Easter Sunday carnage, the former Navy Chief of Staff said that all such documents would have to be brought to one place and considered before initiating legal proceedings. Acknowledging that there could be delays, lawmaker Weerasekera said that on the instructions of the Attorney General a 12-member team of lawyers was working on the case. The minister vowed to expose the mastermind behind the Easter Sunday attacks. Investigations continued while some of those wanted were overseas, the minister said.
The minister acknowledged that the Attorney General couldn’t proceed without the P CoI report. Minister Weerasekera reiterated that once the President received the P CoI report, it would be sent to the Attorney General. The minister said that there were documents two to three feet high that needed scrutiny. The minister assured comprehensive investigation. The minister said that investigations pertaining to eight blasts had been completed and the reports handed over to the AG. However, the Attorney General had found shortcomings in those investigations.
Author
By Saman Indrajith
The Presidential Commission of Inquiry on the Easter Sunday bombings had failed to identify the mastermind of , the JVP said yesterday.
Addressing the media at the party headquarters in Pelawatte, JVP Propaganda Secretary MP Vijitha Herath said that the PCoI report had levelled accusations against former President Maithripala Sirisena, former IGP and head of intelligence for their dereliction of duty, shirking of responsibilities and not taking action to prevent the attacks and negligence. There were reference to the causes of the terror attacks and actions to be taken to avoid such attacks and the influence of extremist organisations. “However, there is no mention of the mastermind of the attacks, the handlers of the attackers and those whose interests the carnage served. It is also not mentioned whether there has been any foreign or local organisation behind those attacks. As per the PCoI report the attack took place as a result of culmination of extremism.
“According to the PCoI the extremist activities were a result of the prevailing political situation then. The entire nation was waiting to see who was responsible and who masterminded those attacks. The PCoI has failed to identify the true culprits responsible for the terror attacks. The report says that the leader of the suicide cadres killed himself in the attacks and it was a puzzle. That means those who are actually responsible for the attacks are still at large. The report does not provide exact details of the sources of the attacks. The PCoI had sittings for one year and five months. It summoned various persons and got their statements but it has failed to shed any light on the terror attacks. Everybody knows that the top leaders of the government and heads of security and intelligence establishments failed in their duties. Ranil Wickremesinghe was the second in command and he too is bound by the responsibility but the PCoI report fails to identify him as one of the persons against whom legal action should be instituted. The PCoI has treated Wickremesinghe and former President Maithripala Sirisena differently. We are not telling that this report is a total failure but we cannot accept this as a complete report. The PCoI handed over its report to the President on Feb 1. After 23 days it was sent to Parliament. Now, a copy of the report is there in the parliamentary library for the perusal of MPs.”
Herath said that the PCoI did not have powers to take punitive action. “It only has powers to name those responsible and recommend action to be taken against those named.
