Is the implementation of constitutional council practicable?

By S. Akurugoda

(March 29, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) Dr Susantha Gonatilake, in his article under the heading “Can those who question Sri Lanka’s sovereignty be CC members?” dated 18 March 2009 appeared in The Island has quite rightly pointed out misdeeds of some of the political nominees to the Constitutional Councils.

As per the Article 41A (4) of the Chapter VIIA of the Constitution, the persons to be appointed or nominated to the Constitution Council (CC) shall be persons of eminence and integrity who have distinguished themselves in public life and who are not members of any political party.

Dr Goonatilake has sighted two nominees as examples, namely those of Wigneswaran and Jayadeva Uyangoda. Jayaddeva Uyangoda is a strong advocate of Tamil’s so-called self-determination, separatism and Tamil Eelam and the extent of damage caused to the image of Sri Lanka and its people, as a result of his contribution towards this end, is enormous. One needs not go far to find evidence in support of this claim. The easiest way is to visit any pro-LTTE website, particularly TamilNet and simply type-in ‘Jayadeva Uyangoda’ and search!

For the LTTE propaganda machinery, he is a ‘well regarded’ political commentator’.

His statements therein resembles to those of an adviser or a spokesperson of the outfit. He does not see any thing wrong with the LTTE. The entire problem is with the Sinhala politicians and the majority community. According to his ‘vision’ “the conflict must be viewed as a struggle between ‘two nations’ and Tamil ethnic rebellion is not just a terrorist endeavor as many in Sri Lanka believed at the time, but the manifestation of legitimate political grievances and aspirations of a minority ethnic community”.

LTTE is now a banned terrorist organization in Sri Lanka and hence candidature of people who work hard to make the terrorist outfit legitimized, to a council responsible for recommending and approving the appointments of the personnel of the highest order, is highly questionable. Can such persons, under the circumstances, be considered as of eminence and independent? Naturally empowering political parties to nominate their representatives, one cannot expect the CC to have politically independent people. Nominations of Wigneswaran and Uyangoda are typical examples.

The CC consists of PM, Speaker, Leader of the Opposition, a representative of the President, five persons nominated by the PM and the Leader of the Opposition and a person nominated by the MPs belonging to political parties or independent groups other than the respective political parties or independent groups to which the PM and the Leader of the Opposition belongs. Out of the five members nominated by the PM and the Leader of the Opposition three shall be from minorities.

By including a ‘minority interest’ factor a racial quota has been given to the CC, and on the same pretext, a great injustice has been done to the majority community as there is no one to look after the majority community’s interest since there is no guarantee that that the other five members (including the speaker and the Leader of the opposition) are always come from the majority community. On the other hand, Segregating members of a Council of the highest order, according to communal lines could aggravate an already regretful situation.

With the implementation of the 17th amendment article 41 B, no person can be appointed or removed by the President as the Chairman or a member of any of the Commissions specified (Election, Public Service, Police, Human Rights, Bribery or Corruption, etc), except on a recommendation or approval of the Council.

As per the Article 41C, no person can be appointed by the President to any of the Offices specified (Chief Justice, Judges of the Supreme Court, President and the Judges of the Court of Appeal, Members of the Judicial Service Commission, Attorney-General, Auditor-General, Inspector General of Police, Secretary-General of Parliament etc) unless such appointment has been approved by the Council upon a recommendation made to the Council by the President.

Only the power of appointments of the Heads of Army, the Navy and the Air Force is left with the President. As far as the above appointments are concerned, the country’s elected President will become a mere rubber stamp.

As per the relevant section of Article 41A, Speaker shall be the Chairman of the Council and in the absence of the Chairman, the Prime Minister, and in the absence of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition shall preside at the meetings of the Council while leaving the status of the representative of the executive President in the CC on par with those representatives of the minority parties. The executive President of a country seeking approval from a committee headed by the Leader of the Opposition, in an event when the latter is chairing the CC, for appointment in his own administration is something extraordinary (even if it looks like super-star democracy) and my understanding is that such a democracy is not existing anywhere in the world (including the so-called five star democracies of the West!).

There is no wonder, why the current Leader of Opposition is finding fault with the President for not implementing the 17th amendment. The Leader of the Opposition knows very well that CC is the only remaining weapon he has to screw the President and his administration, after failing to ‘topple’ the government several times by various means even with the fullest backing of some foreign ambassadors.

-Sri Lanka Guardian