Author: TELO Admin

The question whether parliamentary elections will be held before the Presidential election or whether the elections will be delayed to make changes in the parliamentary elections system is causing confusion among the people.

Although President Ranil Wickremesinghe recently asked the cabinet to prepare for the Presidential election, the Rajapaksas are insisting that parliamentary elections should be held first.

President Wickremesinghe’s initial talks with former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his younger brother Basil Rajapaksa did not lead to any agreement regarding the formation of an alliance or the elections.

While the President seems to be determined that the Presidential election should be held before mid-October according to the constitition, the majority of Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna ( SLPP ) MPs want parliamentary elections to be held first. That demand has intensified since Basil’s return from America. But the important question is whether the Rajapaksas will be able to prevail upon the President to comply with that request.

When Basil Rajapaksa met the President for the second time, he presented to him their demand regarding parliamentary elections. He told the media that before meeting the President, he had consulted members of Parliament from his party and its allies and did not expect an immediate determination from the President on holding parliamentary elections first. He has also said they need to have discussions again.

The next parliamentary elections should be held between August and September 2025. But the House can pass a resolution a with simple majority support to request the President to dissolve Parliament immediately to facilitate the holding of elections before the Presidential election. But, the President is not bound to dissolve the Parliament on account of that.

However, the President now has the power to dissolve Parliament at any time. But, he is not going to agree to dissolve Parliament because of his emphasis on the Presidential election.

Meanwhile, since a significant number of current Members of Parliament were elected to Parliament for the first time in the 2020 general elections, it is certain that they are not going to support a dissolution because if Parliament is dissolved before the end of the five-year term, they will lose their chance to get pension.

The Rajapaksas, who had always held parliamentary elections after the Presidential elections during their rule, have now come up with a strange reasoning to justify their current position.

In an interview with a private television channel recently, Basil said that if parliamentary elections are held after the Presidential election, the people will give overwhelming support to the party of the new President. So parliamentary elections must be held first to ensure that the people vote rationally. By this argument he indirectly acknowledges that the people of the country did not vote intelligently in the parliamentary elections held after the Presidential election during their rule.

Not only that, he is now speaking as though he has forgotten the key role he played in encouraging party cross-overs to secure a two-thirds majority in the House to introduce constitutional amendments and anti-democratic laws aimed at strengthening his family’s interests after the 2010 and 2020 parliamentary elections.

At the same time, Mahinda Rajapaksa has also voiced his support for the demand that parliamentary elections must be held before the Presidential election and added “If our proposal is not accepted, the party of the winner of the Presidential election will win the parliamentary elections overwhelmingly. It is not good for the country. It is important that there should be a fair situation in the country after the elections.”

It is clear from the comments of the Rajapaksa brothers that the Rajapaksas’ desire is that no party should get a clear majority in Parliament.

It seems that the Rajapaksas do not want a strong successor government as their party is unlikely to win the parliamentary elections. It is because of that they think that the party of the next President should not win a big victory in the parliamentary elections

But the President’s United National Party (UNP) does not want parliamentary elections to be held first. The party strongly believes that Wickremesinghe has a chance of winning the Presidential election as a result of the economic restructuring that the government is carrying out with the help of the International Monetary Fund.

The UNP being organisationally very weak is not in a position to face parliamentary elections at the moment. Party stalwarts believe that if Wickremesinghe wins the presidential election, they will be able to face the parliament elections confidently.

The President has so far not expressed any opinion publicly regarding the Rajapaksa brothers’ demand on Parliamentary elections. It seems that the Rajapaksas don’t have any option other than supporting Wickremesinghe in the Presidential election even though they have contradictions with him on many issues including the elections. Even if Wickremesinghe (with their support) becomes President again, the Rajapaksas will not want his government to be stable.

Although they say that they want a fair situation to be maintained in the country after the elections, they seem to think that it is in their best interest to have a fragile government in office.

Claiming that SLPP and JVP have robust organizational structures and SLPP and opposition leader Sajith Premadasa’s Samagi Jana Balawegaya ( SJB ) have sufficient popular support, Basil said in the television interview that the UNP lacks strong structures and popular support, but it has the best presidential candidate.

These comments are a clear indication of his belief that if SLPP and UNP work together in the presidential election, it would be beneficial for both parties. But, at the same time, he wants Parliamentary elections be held first so that the UNP does not get a big victory in it. The Rajapaksas want all circumstances to be favourable to their interests at all times.

It is noteworthy that most of the recent opinion polls have showed that it is impossible for any political party to get an absolute majority, if the parliamentary elections are held in the present political situation.

Meanwhile, with the presidential election six months away, the cabinet’s approval for a proposal to change the parliamentary election system last week has raised suspicions.

According to reports on the cabinet resolution on electoral reforms, laws will be introduced to elect 160 Members of Parliament on the basis of First-Past – the Post system and remaining 65 members on the basis of proportional representation.

A similar proposal was said to have been submitted to the Cabinet by Justice and Constitutional Reforms Minister Dr.Wijedasa Rajapaksa latter part of the last year. He denied the reports that the government was also considering holding a referendum to seek people’s approval for abolishing the Executive Presidential system along with electoral reforms. Anyway the proposal for electoral reforms has been brought forward again and cabinet approved it.

It is also noteworthy that late last year, President Wickremesinghe had appointed a commission led by former Chief Justice Priyasath Dep to completely review all the processes related to the elections and submit a report within six months. Election watchdog civil organizations and opposition parties have expressed fears that the proposed parliamentary electoral reforms could lead to the postponement of elections. But Minister Wijedasa Rjapakshe has stated that the new system would not be applied in the coming elections.

The electorate delimitation process is crucial for electoral reforms. Dealing with the various procedures associated with those process takes a long time, even last for years.

Provincial council elections have not been held for many years due to a glitch in the delimitation process after the law was passed in 2017 during the ‘ Yahapalanaya ‘ government to hold the provincial council elections under a mixed electoral system.

However, under the constitution, parliamentary elections cannot be postponed. Therefore, speculation in the political about the postponement of the 2025 parliamentary elections are unfounded.

Sri Lankan politicians are notorious for their innate ability for fishing in troubled waters; to turn any incident of any gravity – even incidents of national importance – to their advantage. A slight analysis of almost every Presidential Election held in the country would reveal how the existing political, economic and defence scenarios of the country at the time were cleverly manipulated by the winning parties to secure majority of votes. In the last Presidential Election, securing national security and bringing economic fraud of the highest order to justice were the most popular political promises made by the winning party. However, the reality of the country as of now is that the perpetrators who committed the bond scam are yet to be brought into the country, let alone producing them before courts and doing justice by the Easter Sunday attacks victims is slowly becoming a pipedream for survivors who are slowly trying to move on with their lives.

However, for politicians, these incidents are seemingly mere opportunities to be used at times they deem suitable for gains or keep shelved till such time arrives. Just like how essential a wound is for a beggar, these issues hardly get solved but instead dragged through the mud again and again until the last bit of political gain is extracted from it.

On giving a sensible listen to former President Maithripala Sirisena’s recent comments about being aware of the culprits behind the Easter Sunday attacks, the logical conclusion one could arrive at is that the explosive statement has no other intent behind it other than gaining some political gainsay, in a year dubbed as ‘Election year’.

Speaking to the media in Kandy last Friday (22), the ex-President claimed that although the investigations thus far have identified some of the perpetrators of the deadly attacks, that only he alone knows the real culprits behind the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks. Moreover, he said he was prepared to disclose the information to the judiciary if the court makes a request or issues an order in this regard. Maintaining the exclusivity of the information he has revealed, the former President stated that no one has revealed the true masterminds behind the attacks yet and that he is privy to that information. Sirisena said he was willing to disclose the details, but it was the responsibility of the judges to keep the information strictly confidential, hinting that the information at his disposal is sensitive and of grave national importance.

The information about the Easter Sunday attacks is only a small part of a much longer interview with the electronic media where Sirisena highlighted a number of other issues pertaining to the SLFP’s stance in the upcoming elections, the prospect of MPs leaving the party and the ability of the party to form political alliances that assure an upper hand. Looking at the whole interview without isolating the bit about the Easter Sunday attacks, it looks more of an attempt to clear his own name, and an attempt to convince the media that they need to look elsewhere for real bad guys.

Probing deeper into the matter, he talked about the Easter Sunday attacks, it begs the question as to why he decided to keep this information of national importance to himself all this time and coincidentally reveal it to the media at a time when much is happening in the political arena and at a time when a major election is on the horizon. Considering how Sirisena has voiced his desires to contest once again in the Presidential Election, it would be quite ironic and shameless for him to use the Easter Sunday attacks as a political scapegoat in an attempt to reach the hot seat again, given how he was ruled responsible by the Supreme Court for the very attacks that killed around 270 people.

In January 2023, a seven-judge Supreme Court bench ruled that Sirisena was responsible for negligence to take measures to prevent the attacks despite stern intelligence warnings two weeks prior and ordered the former President to pay Rs 100 million from his personal funds to family members of victims who brought the civil case before the court.

Considering how he accepted till collections to pay the fine, it is peculiar as to why he didn’t decide to reveal this information even at a time like that when the topic was hot and he was constantly under the microscope.

An inquiry, rather understandably has been ordered to probe into the statement made by Sirisena regardless of whatever the outcome of the statement would be, it is quite disheartening to see the Easter Sunday attacks; the names of the victims and the dignity of the survivors, are being dragged through the mud yet again for political gain!

Plaintiff Hamilton Reserve Bank Ltd. (HRB), countering the defendant Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka’s motion for a five-month stay, has requested the New York Southern District Court to extend the stay till the end of April 2024 on the condition that timely and specific information about the status of restructuring be submitted by 16 April.

Complete details about any restructuring proposal Sri Lanka made or received and the progress are the key contents of the proposed reports the Plaintiff demands. In its ‘Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Further Stay,’ HRB argued a further five-month stay until the end of July 2024 is unwarranted. “The traditional stay factors and comity do not support a five-month stay. The prior four-month stay has already afforded Sri Lanka a limited opportunity to achieve a consensual resolution before judgments are entered or enforced against its debts. Nothing more is required,” the Bank said.

Bringing out Peru’s restructuring, which took seven years as an example, the HRB pleaded: “Second Circuit law clearly states that bondholder actions cannot be kept indefinitely. That is because sovereign debt restructurings, which involve ‘voluntary and open-ended negotiations’, are not the equivalent of a judicially enforced bankruptcy proceeding. Instead, sovereign debt restructurings are merely voluntary, private negotiations, with no judicial supervision or clear timeline, that typically take years. Given such negotiations’ protracted and uncertain nature, courts should not deny bondholders’ right to enforce the underlying debt by making their rights conditional on the completion of restructuring.”

“Sri Lanka is pursuing private negotiations with other creditors that have ‘no obvious and reasonably proximate termination date,’ indeed, these negotiations remain at an early stage nearly two years after Sri Lanka’s default. As in Peru, Plaintiff’s rights cannot be made conditional on the completion of Sri Lanka’s restructuring, since there is no assurance of whether or when that will occur. And while Sri Lanka has chosen to make multiple, shorter stay requests, instead of a single request to stay, this action will allow Sri Lanka to complete its efforts to renegotiate its foreign debt, and the result is the same. While the restructuring negotiations drag on, Sri Lanka will simply continue seeking stays for the foreseeable future, making the requested stay ‘indefinite’ for all practical purposes.

Moreover, the combined effect of the prior four-month stay and Sri Lanka’s current request is a nine-month stay: longer than any other stay entered in a sovereign debt case in this Circuit, including the eight-month stay granted in Peru,” the Bank justified.

The Paris Club members and the US have supported Sri Lanka’s request for extension.

Sri Lanka was sued in the United States by a bondholder after the government defaulted on its debt for the first time in history while struggling to stop an economic meltdown where HRB, owns over US$ 250 million in principal amount of US$ 1 billion worth of Sri Lanka’s 5.875% International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs) issued in 2012, filed the lawsuit in June last year in a New York federal court seeking full payment of principal and interest. The Bonds matured on 25 July 2022. Hamilton alleged that due to Sri Lanka’s default, it is owed US$ 250.19 million in principle and US$ 7.349 million in accrued interest (before accounting for pre- and post-judgment interest). In mid-April, Sri Lanka announced a moratorium on foreign debt repayments, including the bonds, and since then, has made no payments on the bonds. The government of Sri Lanka filed a motion in September 2022 to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff lacks contractual standing.

Sri Lanka has a civic population that has the capacity to take to the streets if the government violates the constitution to postpone the presidential elections, Chairman of the People’s Action for Free & Fair Elections (PAFFREL) Rohana Hettiarachchi said.

“Elections don’t belong to political parties, governments or political leaders. Elections belong to the people,” Hettiarachchi said speaking to reporters.

“The presidential election must definitely be held between September 17 and October 17. The president cannot change that, nor can the cabinet, nor Basil Rajapaksa,” he said.

Rajapaksa, the national organiser of the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), has said it would be advisable to hold the parliamentary elections before the presidential polls.

Parliamentary elections are not due till 2025, but the president has the authority to dissolve parliament and call for elections. Parliament can also vote to dissolve itself. The SLPP currently holds a majority in Sri Lanka’s legislature.

“It is wholly the responsibility of the election commission to hold the presidential election during this period. The government cannot take decisions on the presidential election,” said Hettiarachchi.

“If for some reason there are attempt to act in violation of the constitution, we believe our country has a citizenry strong enough to take to the streets,” he said.

SLPP leader and former president Mahinda Rajapaksa, Basil’s older brother, has also called for parliamentary elections to be held first.

The Rajapaksa brothers’ argument is that the winner of the presidential election would be able to consolidate power after securing a strong majority at a follow-up general election, which they claim would be not in the best interest of democracy.

The Rajapaksas nor anyone else in the SLPP had voiced this concern when the SLPP went onto secure a two-thirds majority in 2020, months after the party’s candidate and another Rajapaksa brother, Gotabaya, won the 2019 presidential poll won in a landslide.

Dissident SLPP MP Prof. G. L Peiris yesterday (25) said the onus was on the Election Commission (EC) to announce the presidential election on July 17, 2024, even if the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government advanced the parliamentary election.

Addressing the media at his Kirula Place residence, the former External Affairs Minister said that the country expected the EC to act in terms of the presidential election law.

Therefore, there couldn’t be any ambiguity regarding the EC having to conduct presidential elections between Sept 19 and Oct 17, 2024, though the media reported contradictory statements, Prof. Peiris said.

As the current Parliament had completed two and half years of its five-year term, President Wickremesinghe could dissolve it, Prof. Peiris said. Otherwise, the Parliament could endorse a motion calling for early general election and submit it to President Wickremesinghe, Prof. Peiris said.

In terms of Article 70 of the Constitution, the relevant motion should have the backing of the majority of MPs at the time a vote was taken on the motion, Prof. Peiris said, adding that it could be adopted even without the consent of a simple majority in Parliament.

Prof. Peiris dealt with the issue at hand in the wake of continuing disagreement between President Wickremesinghe and the SLPP over advancing the general election ahead of the presidential polls.

UNP leader Wickremesinghe has indicated that the presidential polls would be held first.

Prof. Peiris said that the Opposition wasn’t interested in the ongoing dispute at all. “We want the EC to fulfil its constitutional responsibility by making the announcement as stipulated in the presidential election law,” he said. Recently the former switched his allegiance to the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB).

Alleging that President Wickremesinghe and the SLPP feared facing the electorate, Prof. Peiris said that the Opposition expected the current dispensation not to pursue strategies meant to put off presidential polls.

“If parliamentary polls are advanced, President Wickremesinghe will have to take necessary measures to release the required funds from the Consolidated Fund. Rs 10 bn allocated through the 2024 Budget cannot under any circumstances be utilized fully or in part to fund parliamentary polls,” Prof Peiris said.

Referring to the sabotaging of Local Government polls on the false claim of not having required funds, Prof. Peiris urged the government not to seek to put off elections pending electoral reforms. Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, recently proposed that 160 of the 225 MPs in Parliament be elected by the first- past-the-post electorate by electorate system, and the remaining 65 chosen proportionally, either at national or provincial level.

Prof. Peiris said that the Opposition expected the government to conduct elections on time without making silly attempts to put them off through fraudulent means.

Commenting on former President and incumbent SLFP leader Maithripala Sirisena’s recent disclosure that he knew the mastermind of the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, Prof. Peiris emphasized such claims should be examined, taking into consideration the political environment.

Was he telling the truth or just trying to exploit the heinous crime for some sort of a political advantage, the former Minister asked. The SLPP National List MP questioned the conduct of the former President who was yet to fully pay compensation amounting to Rs 100 mn ordered by the Supreme Court.

Prof. Peiris said that MP Sirisena through his actions brought the Office of the President to disrepute. Responding to a media query, Prof. Peiris said that as a former President, lawmaker Sirisena didn’t enjoy immunity and was now subjected to normal procedures of the law like any other citizen.

Referring to MP Sirisena’s subsequent claim that he received fresh information regarding the mastermind three weeks ago, Prof. Peiris said that the former Defence Minister should have got in touch with the relevant authorities immediately without playing coy about it.