The provisions of the proposed 21st Amendment to the Constitution as a Private Member’s proposal by Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara, violates the universal suffrage as well as the Executive Power of the people.
This was stated by Senior Counsel Canishka Vitharana before the Supreme Court, when five petitions which filed seeking an order to rule that certain provisions of the 21st and 22nd Amendments to the Constitution, which have been tabled in Parliament as Private Members’ Proposals by the Secretary General of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya Ranjith Madduma Bandara and Minister Wijayadasa Rajapakshe, were found to be unconstitutional, were taken up before the Supreme Court yesterday.
The petitions were taken up before a Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, Justices Janak de Silva and Arjuna Obeysekera.
The petitions were filed by Attorney-at-Law Nuwan Ballanthudawa, a member of the Central Board of the Patriotic National Front, Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera on behalf of the United National Organisations, Colonel Anil Amarasekera, Co-Chairman of the National Joint Committee and Jayantha Kulatunga of the United Ceylon General Assembly.
When these petitions were taken up Attorney-at-Law Canishka Vitharana, appearing for Nuwan Ballanthuda, a Member of the Central Committee of the Patriotic National Front, said that the proposed amendment to the Constitution would be a violation of the universal suffrage of the people.
He said the clauses had removed the country’s President, who was the country’s Head of State, but did not say who would be the next Head of State.
He said the proposed Constitutional Amendment removes the power of the President and makes him to work under advise, depriving the President of the right to make independent decisions.
He also pointed out that the power of the President to appoint and remove Governors has been reduced when considering clauses relating to Local Government bodies.
He said the Governor should now act on the advice of the President, but the proposed amendments also give the Governor the power to make decisions as he sees fit without seeking such advice.
Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya pointed out that instead of exercising the Executive Power of the people alone, this power would be given to several authorities.
He also pointed out that acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, who is the Head of the Presidential Cabinet, is similar.
Senior Counsel Canishka Vitharana stated that the President is not a member of the Cabinet as per the proposed Constitutional Amendment.President’s Counsel Manohara de Silva stated that the President has the sovereignty over the Executive Power of the people. He said that it would be a big problem if there were conflicting opinions between them while acting on the advice of another person.
He also said that the exercise of that power by a Prime Minister who was not appointed by the people was a problem. The President’s Counsel has stated that the President has been elected by the people of the country and should not have to act on the instructions of a person who has been elected to Parliament from the National List and served as the Prime Minister without receiving a single vote.
Following the submissions of Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Solicitor General Indika Demuni de Silva, who appeared for the Attorney General, made submissions.
She stated that the Attorney General did not object to the Bill and would support the court by presenting facts at the hearing of the petition.
The Solicitor General stated that it was the opinion of the Attorney General that several clauses in the Bill should be amended.
She pointed out that the universal suffrage and sovereignty of the people could not be removed or alienated.
She cited several rulings that the Bill, which includes amendments to that right, must be passed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament and by the people in a referendum if it is to become law.
Consideration of the petitions will continue.
A group of lawyers including President’s Counsels Manohara de Silva, Palitha Kumarasinghe, Senior Counsel Canishka Vitharana appeared for the petitioners.
Add new comment