Category: News

The Committee on Parliamentary Business has decided to hold the debate on the draft of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution on October 06 and 07, the Communications Department of Sri Lanka Parliament says.

The meeting was chaired by Speaker of Parliament Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena this morning (Sep. 29).

The committee also decided that the parliament would convene from October 03 (Monday) to October 07 (Friday).

Accordingly, October 03 is set aside for the purpose of taking up 50 Questions for Oral Answers which were postponed due to various reasons. From October 04 to 06, except for Friday (Oct. 07), Questions for Oral Answers are reserved for the time period between 9.30 am and 10.30 a.m.

Furthermore, it has been decided to extend the time allotted for the debate pertaining to government business by half an hour from the October 04 (Tuesday) to allocate that time for the independent Members of the Parliament to express their opinions. Accordingly, the time for debating the government business, scheduled to end at 4.30 p.m., will be extended until 5.00 p.m.

It was agreed upon to allocate the remaining 30 minutes until 5.30 p.m., for the Motion at the Adjournment Time on one day and Questions at the Adjournment Time on every other following day.

On October 04, from 10.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., Order under the Strategic Development Project Act, No. 14 of 2008 published under the Gazette Extraordinary No. 2291/25, Order under Excise (Special Provisions) Act No. 13 of 1989 published under the Gazette Extraordinary No. 2290/19, two regulations under the Import and Export Control Act No. 1 of 1969 published under the Gazette Extraordinary No. 2294/29 are scheduled to be taken up for debate.

Furthermore, Select Committee of Parliament to study the practical problems and difficulties that have arisen in relation to enhancing the rank in the Ease of doing business index in Sri Lanka and make its proposals and recommendations is to be moved.

The Motion at the Adjournment Time brought in by the Government will be held from 5.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m.

On October 05, from 10.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m., Order under the Extradition Law, No. 8 of 1977 published under the Gazette Extraordinary No. 2282/19 will be taken up, the Secretary General stated. Thereafter, from 1.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m., the debate on the Amendments to the Standing Orders of the Parliament will be held for the second consecutive day. From 5.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., time has been set aside for Questions at the Adjournment Time.

The debate on the 22nd Constitution Amendment Bill is scheduled to be held on October 06 and 07. Accordingly, the debate on October 06 will be held from 10.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. From 5.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., time has been set for the Motion at the Adjournment Time by the Opposition.

The Secretary General also said that the debate on the 22nd Constitution Amendment Bill is scheduled to be held on October 07 from 9.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

The constitutional amendment, which had been referred to as the 21st Amendment so far, will in fact be the 22nd Amendment, as another draft 21st Amendment has already been gazetted.

The 21st Amendment to the Constitution is the constitutional amendment presented to the parliament by the main opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) in April as a private Bill. It was later published in the government gazette and challenged in the Supreme Court.

Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, who was appointed the Minister of Justice, Prison Affairs & Constitutional Reforms, later presented a government Bill to the Cabinet of Ministers in his ministerial capacity, which is referred to as the 22nd amendment.

The Supreme Court, delivering its determination, ruled that the 21st amendment put forward by the SJB cannot proceed further without a public referendum.

In such a backdrop, the Cabinet of Ministers gave the approval to publish the 22nd amendment presented by the Justice Minister in the government gazette.

Policy approval of the Cabinet of Ministers was given on June 20, 2022 for the preliminary draft for the 22nd amendment. The 22nd constitutional amendment bill was prepared by the legal Draftsman accordingly. The Attorney General had later informed that the bill is in accordance with the Constitution.

Consequently, the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by the Minister of Justice, Prison Affairs and Constitutional Reforms, to publish the 22nd constitutional amendment Bill in the Government Gazette and thereafter present the same in Parliament for approval.

The constitutional amendment is expected to empower Parliament over the executive president and annul the 20A to the Constitution, which had given unfettered powers to President after abolishing the 19th Amendment.

Under the 22A, the President, the Cabinet of Ministers and the National Council will be held accountable to the parliament. Fifteen Committees and Oversight Committees are also accountable to parliament.

The 22nd constitutional amendment comprises features of both the 19th amendment introduced by the Yahapalana Government and the 20th amendment brought forth under the presidency of Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

As per the draft Bill, a Constitutional Council will come into effect and it will consist of members including the Prime Minister, the Speaker of Parliament, the Opposition Leader, a Member of Parliament appointed by the President, two members nominated by both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader. The council will be chaired by the Speaker.

The Public Service Commission, the National Police Commission, the Audit Service Commission, Human Rights Commission, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, Finance Commission, Delimitation Commission and the National Procurement Commission shall be responsible and answerable to the parliament. However, Election Commission is not.

As per this amendment, no person shall be appointed by the President unless such appointment has been approved by the council upon a recommendation made to the council by the Head of State in instances of appointing the Chief Justice and the judges of the Supreme Court, the president and the judges of the Court of Appeal, the members of the Judicial Service Commission other than its chairman.

The same is applicable when appointing the Attorney General, the Auditor General, the Inspector-General of Police, the Central Bank Governor, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Secretary-General of Parliament.

The 22nd constitutional amendment abolishes the ability of a dual citizen to be appointed as a Member of Parliament.

It also includes provisions of the 20th amendment that the number of Cabinet Ministers shall not exceed 30 and the number of ministers who are not members of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers shall not exceed 40.

However, if a recognized political party or an independent group which obtains the highest number of seats in parliament forms a national government, the number of ministers in the Cabinet, the ministers who are not in the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers shall be determined by the parliament.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has determined that some provisions of the draft of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution are inconsistent with the Constitution. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has arrived at the conclusion that the draft constitutional amendment needs to be passed by a special majority and a referendum or the clauses in question should be amended. The draft of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was challenged in the Supreme Court in terms of Article 120(1) (1) of the Constitution.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe held bilateral talks with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Tokyo today (Sep. 28), the President’s Media Division (PMD) says.

The meeting took place at Akasaka Palace in Tokyo.

The Japanese Prime Minister warmly welcomed President Wickremesinghe and extended his best wishes on his appointment to the Office of President.

The two leaders held discussions on further strengthening relations between the two countries.

President Wickremesinghe left the island on Sep. 26 on an official visit to Japan and the Philippines.

During his two-day official visit to Japan, the President also attended the funeral ceremony of former Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe to pay his last respects to the assassinated leader.

After concluding his Japan visit, President Ranil Wickremesinghe is scheduled to leave for the Philippines later today to preside over the meeting of the Governors of the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

During his visit to the Philippines, President Wickremesinghe will hold discussions with the President of the Philippines Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos Jr. and the President of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) Masatsugu Asakawa.

The President is scheduled to return to the island upon completion of his official tour on September 30.

Sri Lanka is considering selling tickets to tourists in US dollars in a bid to raise money to import spare parts Transport Minister Bandula Gunawardana said amid the worst currency crisis in the history of the island’s intermediate regime central bank.

“I plan to ask permission from the central bank to charge for tickets in US dollars,” Minister Gunawardana said.

“Hotels charge in US dollars, I do not see why we cannot.”

Sri Lanka’s Department of Railways is finding it difficult to import spare parts for its old engines, he said.

Minister Gunawardana hiked fares to half that of buses and has sharply reduced operations losses, he said.

Minister Gunawardana has also proposed to call international tenders to sell metal scrap to raise dollars for Sri Lanka Railways.

Related

Sri Lanka railways seek forex from scrap metal amid currency crisis

Sri Lanka has an intermediate regime central bank (a soft-peg) which collapses and forex shortages emerge whenever aggressive open market operations are employed (liquidity is injected) to artificially suppress interest rates.

Sri Lanka’s economists got the power to print money in 1950 through US designed Latin America style, though they were not explicitly given the power to depreciate the currency, as the agency was required to maintain a peg to gold at 1.99 grains of gold.

However the rules were relaxed in 1980s, after the US dollar was floated in the 1970s and it was made earlier to depreciate the rupee to compensate for monetary policy errors under so-called basket, band, crawl (BBC) policy that was peddled by Washington based Mercantilists, critics say.

Latin America style central banks also started to default from the 1980s.

Once the power was given, economists are now unwilling to give up the power to print money and depreciate the currency though calls are intensifying to harden the peg block monetary instability.

Over the year economists have lobbied politicians to control and exchange control and import control laws and curtail the economic freedoms of citizens during successive currency crises and money printing depleted reserves.

Money laundering laws were deployed against citizens who use US dollars in the current crises to enforce a state monopoly in money, legal tender.

Source: Economy Next

Sri Lanka’s stance of advocating for a domestic truth-seeking mechanism earlier this month at the 51st Session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to address long-standing allegations of rights violations and war crimes will do little to build international and local confidence in meaningful action, experts told The Sunday Morning.

Sri Lanka’s hurried submission to the international watchdog this year is bound to create confusion within the ranks of the international community whose assistance the bankrupt nation desperately needs, as the interim Government led by President Ranil Wickremesinghe is seen to backpedal on Resolution 30/1, which Sri Lanka co-sponsored at the 30th Session of the UNHRC in 2015, when Wickremesinghe was the then Prime Minister.

Sri Lanka’s stance at the UNHRC came in the backdrop of a Staff-Level Agreement between the Government and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which, if approved, will provide a much needed $ 2.9 billion conditional assistance programme over a four-year period. The IMF agreement is viewed as a confidence-building mechanism, opening doors for Sri Lanka to enter a dialogue with its creditors to negotiate debt restructuring, and providing an opportunity to seek bridging finance needed for the nation of 22 million to recover from an unprecedented economic crisis.

Addressing the UNHRC session in the wake of a scathing report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which for the first time included concerns about economic crimes that may have contributed to the ongoing crisis, Sri Lankan Minister of Foreign Affairs Ali Sabry stated: “The Government will endeavour to establish a credible truth-seeking mechanism within the framework of the Constitution. The contours of such a model that would suit the particular conditions of Sri Lanka are under discussion.”

Minister Sabry, who is a former Minister of Justice in the Gotabaya Rajapaksa Government, argued that if reconciliation and human rights in Sri Lanka were to be meaningful and sustainable, they must be carried out in cooperation with the country, being compatible with the aspirations of its people, and in accordance with its constitutional framework.

“The international community is aware that unconstitutional and intrusive external initiatives have repeatedly failed to yield meaningful results on the ground and are in effect an unproductive drain on member state resources,” Sabry stressed.

The Foreign Minister called on the UNHRC to acknowledge “actual progress on the ground” and to assess the situation in a realistic manner.

“It is 13 years since the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka, and since then a new generation has emerged with their own aspirations. While issues of reconciliation and accountability are being comprehensively addressed through a domestic process, it is time to reflect realistically on the trajectory of this resolution which has continued on the agenda of the Council for over a decade and undertake a realistic assessment on whether it has benefited the people of Sri Lanka. There is a need to acknowledge actual progress on the ground and support Sri Lanka,” Sabry stated.

However, what such a domestic truth-seeking mechanism may look like remains unknown, with no guiding document nor dialogue from the Government on the matter made available to the public.

The Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs would not comment on the matter, with both Ministers overseas on official visits. Attempts by The Sunday Morning to contact Minister Sabry and Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe regarding how the Government plans to enact a domestic mechanism proved unsuccessful.

Delaying tactics weaken credibility?

When asked about the Government’s continued stance on a domestic mechanism, former Faculty Member at the University of Colombo Department of Political Science and Public Policy and Centre for Policy Research and Analysis Founder-Director Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda told The Sunday Morning that the Government was aware that it lacked credibility in the eyes of the international community and political will locally to effect a meaningful truth-seeking mechanism, calling the stance expressed at the UNHRC sessions a delaying tactic and a diplomatic tool to secure support from other countries to face a vote at the sessions.

“People, locally and internationally, don’t trust the words of the Government. I think the Government also knows that by making these empty promises, it may be able to persuade some countries to vote in its favour at the UNHRC. If we are to take the Government’s stance on truth-seeking seriously, it should prepare the background within the country to accept it.

“In the past, there has been a lot of opposition to truth-seeking by the bureaucracy, Sinhala nationalists, and some segments of the military. The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) which is a partner of this Government has opposed it. This Government hasn’t done anything to initiate a new discussion about this mechanism locally before going to Geneva and making these promises. Therefore, there is very little credibility in what the Government is doing in Geneva [UNHRC sessions]. This is very unfortunate because a truth-seeking mechanism is one of the most important steps towards reconciliation and democratisation. However, every government has been misusing it,” Prof. Uyangoda observed.

According to Prof. Uyangoda, the Government’s annual representation at the UNHRC is a delaying tactic due to lack of political will to pursue meaningful reconciliation and justice mechanisms. He charged that the Government’s “annual pilgrimage to Geneva” uses lofty undertakings to pacify Western nations which pressure Sri Lanka on human rights issues.

“I think this time is no different. With the economic crisis, Sri Lanka will likely try to gain a little sympathy from the West as plan A, while rallying countries like Russia, China, and others to vote against any resolution, pointing out that if a precedent is set with Sri Lanka, they will be targeted next. That is plan B.”

Commenting on the progress on human rights since 2015, Prof. Uyangoda argued that the Yahapalanaya Government had not spoken on the issue with a unanimous voice and had faced much resistance. He stressed that over the years, Sri Lanka had been making excuses for the slow progress or lack thereof on truth-seeking, reconciliation, and peacebuilding, adding that each government used a “culture of commissions” to prolong the issue and avoid being decisive on human rights issues.

He also said that there were serious obstacles to a truth-seeking mechanism, since after the war, many bureaucrats, policymakers, and senior members of the armed forces with rights violations allegations against them remained in powerful positions, making it difficult to proceed with a meaningful mechanism.

Ranil’s backflip?

Sri Lanka risks losing what little credibility it has in the international arena with the Foreign Minister’s statement, a former diplomat who was attached to the Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka in Geneva told The Sunday Morning on condition of anonymity.

“The problem is that the Foreign Minister has now said that Sri Lanka is against the 2015 resolution which we as a country co-sponsored. But the current President, who was the then Prime Minister of the Yahapalanaya Government, is the man who wanted Sri Lanka to co-sponsor it. The incumbent President took this step, along with late Minister Managala Samaraweera, and Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe was also a part of it.

“Today, we see Ali Sabry, the former lawyer of the Rajapaksas, going to Geneva with Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe and saying otherwise. Having the same people who co-sponsored the resolution now backtrack creates confusion among the international community, especially the Core Group. It also raises the question of who is really in charge of Sri Lanka at the moment,” the diplomat said.

He pointed out that some of the people who would be most affected by Resolution 46/1 were those in the Rajapaksa family and several key officials in the defence establishment. “It is hard to contemplate why the Government is pushing this stance and doing so now at this stage, when we need international assistance. If this is the Government’s stance, has Wickremesinghe abandoned his vision for reconciliation? Has he been reborn?” the former diplomat questioned, adding that such mixed messaging to the international community would not contribute to clarity and would make Sri Lanka look unreliable.

Following Resolution 30/1 in 2015, a number of political groups and political commentators pushed the narrative that ‘foreign participation’ in truth-seeking mechanisms would amount to foreign judges sitting in judgement over Sri Lankans accused of war crimes and rights violations. The narrative led to erosion of support among the public for any international involvement in a truth-seeking or justice process.

However, according to former Yahapalanaya Minister Dr. Harsha de Silva, the ‘foreign participation’ mentioned in 30/1 was not envisaged as what was spun through such narratives.

“At no time was the co-sponsored Resolution 30/1 a ‘hybrid system’. What was there was ‘with the participation’ of foreign judges or prosecutors. I recall very well discussing this with late Minister Mangala Samaraweera. His view was that ‘participation’ was a broad term. Certain people, for their political interest, claimed that it would have foreign judges sitting in judgement, but there was no such thing. It was an extreme take on the word ‘participation’.

“On the other hand, you have ‘observers’. There have been occasions, some during when Mahinda Rajapaksa was Prime Minister, where there were observers. Furthermore, in the resolution, it clearly states that any mechanism would be done within the constitutional framework of Sri Lanka. There are no provisions for foreign judges to deliver judgements within the Constitution of Sri Lanka. So, these narratives were a complete manipulation of a word. In defence of Mangala I must say this. Of course, Ranil Wickremesinghe sanctioned this. And he [Wickremesinghe] must be truthful to what he advocated at the time,” de Silva told The Sunday Morning.

Lack of credibility

Bhavani Fonseka, a lawyer and rights activist with the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) told The Sunday Morning that the Yahapalanaya Government in 2016 had appointed a Consultation Task Force which, following a countrywide survey, reported that there was a desire from the public for some international involvement in a truth-seeking mechanism due to a trust deficit in local institutions.

“They appointed a Consultation Task Force in 2016, which went around the country, and one of their key findings was that people wanted a hybrid mechanism because they didn’t trust the domestic system. They felt there were failures in the domestic system and that foreign judges needed to be involved in the process,” Fonseka said, adding that it had been a recommendation made when Ranil Wickremesinghe was Prime Minister.

Fonseka questioned why the present Government, with Wickremesinghe at the head, was taking a contradictory stance. “It doesn’t build confidence within Sri Lanka or internationally. The Government is now sending a different signal. I think if they are very clear in their message and communicate in one voice, the international community will listen. But this doesn’t seem to be happening.”

No confidence in domestic mechanism

Speaking to The Sunday Morning, Global Tamil Forum (GTF) Spokesman Suren Surendiran stated that given the Government’s actions regarding truth-seeking and reconciliation over the last decade, they did not have confidence in a domestic mechanism to deliver justice for the victims of alleged war crimes.

“Going by the track record over the last 13 years since the end of the armed conflict, I am not very confident at all! Successive governments have promised domestic mechanisms and made various commitments to victims, locals, bilateral partners like India, as well as the international community at the UN which have not been fulfilled at all, but intended to fool all concerned. Sri Lanka has backtracked publicly from some of these commitments. For example, it withdrew from co-sponsorships of resolutions at the UNHRC.

“Also, the truth-seeking mechanism is only one of the four transitional justice pillars. Although it is an important initiative, on its own it will not resolve or be accepted as part of serving justice to victims. Addressing accountability through a credible international mechanism needs to be part of the programme. That’s what the 2015 UNHRC Resolution 30/1 was aiming to address.

“However, successive governments kept deferring or intentionally avoiding addressing this. Hence, the Resolution 46/1 of 2021 went with the recommendations of the High Commissioner to address accountability via collecting and preserving evidence and serving justice through other international mechanisms, including universal jurisdiction. We know how successive governments have pathetically tried to hoodwink the international community with a half-baked Office on Missing Persons (OMP) and other reparation ideas.

“Until Sri Lanka acknowledges that international laws were breached during the war, especially towards the end of the war, and charges persons who had command responsibility, including the then political, civil, and defence service leaders, the international community will not let it go. This is not just to punish for alleged crimes committed but also to ensure that there won’t be any such breaches of international law elsewhere in the world, in the future.

“Instead of punishing war criminals, in Sri Lanka, they are regarded as war heroes, and are promoted or given high posts in State institutions. On rare occasions where courts convict these criminals, they are evidently pardoned by successive presidents. Against this backdrop, who will and why should anyone have any confidence or faith that any such local mechanisms will address accountability or serve justice to victims?” Surendiran questioned.

Source: The Sunday Morning

Minister of Foreign Affairs Ali Sabry called on Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres and briefed him on the steps being taken by Sri Lanka to overcome current challenges.

The discussion also focused on further UN assistance to Sri Lanka.

Foreign Minister Ali Sabry on Saturday (24) sought for cooperation and support of the international community including the United Nations for Sri Lanka’s new resolve to “build back better” with political, economic, and social reforms following the unprecedented crisis faced by the country.

Addressing the UN’s 77th General Assembly in New York, Sabry said measures include a review of the present procedures, the strengthening of the institutional framework of democratic governance, and the adoption of urgent measures to restore long-term economic stability.